+ All Categories
Home > Documents > OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… ·...

OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… ·...

Date post: 13-Aug-2020
Category:
Upload: others
View: 1 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
224
1 OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design Description of Need: The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education Services (SES), collected and analyzed performance data for students with IEPs as part of the development of the Phase I State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP). Analysis of this trend data indicated that about 85 percent of students with disabilities (SWDs) were placed in general education environments for more than 80 percent of the school day [FFY 2012 Annual Performance Report (APR)], yet proficiency data for SWDs has remained relatively static within the 40 percent range for the last few years. The trajectory from 2008-2009 (40.00 percent) to 2012-2013 (48.67 percent) showed slightly positive gains in reading for the aggregate of Grades 3-8 and one high school grade. The overall performance for students with IEPs in reading and mathematics was reported in the FFY 2012 APR at 48.67 percent and 47.25 percent proficient, respectively [Source: Alabama Reading and Math Test (ARMT), SY 2012-2013]. Given that these students were predominantly educated within the general education classrooms, these data suggested that there were concerns regarding students receiving appropriate supports through supplementary aids and services from special education teachers and general education personnel to support and improve their proficiency around literacy first, and then mathematics. During School Year (SY) 2013-2014, Alabama began using a new assessment system, the ACT ASPIRE, which utilized a computer-based assessment system with fewer paper and pencil administrations. The resulting data reflected much lower performance levels across all subgroups, but dramatically lower for special education populations. The ACT ASPIRE test scores continued their downward trajectory for the special education subgroup after the 2014-2015 administration. In FFY 2014, the statewide proficiency in Reading for students with IEPs was 10.24 percent, down from 15.68 percent in the FFY 2013. In Math, the proficiency rate for FFY 2014 was 13.79 percent; the FFY 2013 rate was 17.64 percent. As the ALSDE analyzed Post-School Outcomes (PSO) data for the previous years, staff noted that nearly 40 percent of former students with IEPs in place at the time they left school were not engaged in either college or a career one year after exiting school. When these data were further analyzed by grade level, it became apparent that the middle school grades in both reading and math proficiency experienced substantial drops beginning in the sixth grade with eighth grade performance noted as particularly concerning, further increasing the urgency of the demand for improved instructional methodology so students with IEPs could experience improved educational opportunities in order to achieve more positive outcomes from high school to post-school life. Clearly, ensuring that students who enter ninth grade are prepared to succeed at challenging high school coursework is an important factor in improving future graduates’ successful entry into college or careers with competitive wages. Therefore, Alabama, in conjunction with its stakeholders, selected “Improved Post-School Outcomes” as its State- Identified Measurable Result (SIMR). Basis for Action: In order to achieve the SIMR, the ALSDE planned to focus upon its Theory of Action, an If-Then statement linking academic instruction, transition services, and post-school outcomes. This offered the hypothesis that providing effective, evidence-based technical
Transcript
Page 1: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

1

OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design

Description of Need: The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education Services (SES), collected and analyzed performance data for students with IEPs as part of the development of the Phase I State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP). Analysis of this trend data indicated that about 85 percent of students with disabilities (SWDs) were placed in general education environments for more than 80 percent of the school day [FFY 2012 Annual Performance Report (APR)], yet proficiency data for SWDs has remained relatively static within the 40 percent range for the last few years. The trajectory from 2008-2009 (40.00 percent) to 2012-2013 (48.67 percent) showed slightly positive gains in reading for the aggregate of Grades 3-8 and one high school grade. The overall performance for students with IEPs in reading and mathematics was reported in the FFY 2012 APR at 48.67 percent and 47.25 percent proficient, respectively [Source: Alabama Reading and Math Test (ARMT), SY 2012-2013]. Given that these students were predominantly educated within the general education classrooms, these data suggested that there were concerns regarding students receiving appropriate supports through supplementary aids and services from special education teachers and general education personnel to support and improve their proficiency around literacy first, and then mathematics. During School Year (SY) 2013-2014, Alabama began using a new assessment system, the ACT ASPIRE, which utilized a computer-based assessment system with fewer paper and pencil administrations. The resulting data reflected much lower performance levels across all subgroups, but dramatically lower for special education populations. The ACT ASPIRE test scores continued their downward trajectory for the special education subgroup after the 2014-2015 administration. In FFY 2014, the statewide proficiency in Reading for students with IEPs was 10.24 percent, down from 15.68 percent in the FFY 2013. In Math, the proficiency rate for FFY 2014 was 13.79 percent; the FFY 2013 rate was 17.64 percent. As the ALSDE analyzed Post-School Outcomes (PSO) data for the previous years, staff noted that nearly 40 percent of former students with IEPs in place at the time they left school were not engaged in either college or a career one year after exiting school. When these data were further analyzed by grade level, it became apparent that the middle school grades in both reading and math proficiency experienced substantial drops beginning in the sixth grade with eighth grade performance noted as particularly concerning, further increasing the urgency of the demand for improved instructional methodology so students with IEPs could experience improved educational opportunities in order to achieve more positive outcomes from high school to post-school life. Clearly, ensuring that students who enter ninth grade are prepared to succeed at challenging high school coursework is an important factor in improving future graduates’ successful entry into college or careers with competitive wages. Therefore, Alabama, in conjunction with its stakeholders, selected “Improved Post-School Outcomes” as its State-Identified Measurable Result (SIMR). Basis for Action: In order to achieve the SIMR, the ALSDE planned to focus upon its Theory of Action, an If-Then statement linking academic instruction, transition services, and post-school outcomes. This offered the hypothesis that providing effective, evidence-based technical

Page 2: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

2

assistance consistent with the body of knowledge and research related to the Implementation Science Framework (Fixsen et al., 2005) to impact the academic achievement of middle school students would better prepare students for secondary school work and, thus, facilitate more effective transitions from high school to post-school life. In order to accomplish this result, the ALSDE has established a series of middle school demonstration sites focusing upon academic and behavioral improvement. Similarly, the ALSDE has established secondary transition demonstration sites to implement evidence-based transition practices, including: instruction, community-based vocational instruction, and self-determination/self-advocacy. Additional sites, will be selected each year of the SSIP. Therefore, the ALSDE, SES, began implementing an ongoing project that utilized the existing state infrastructure of eleven regional in-service centers and the Regional Planning Teams (RPTs), as specified in the design requirement of the SSIP as part of the FFY 2013-18 State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report. The structure of the SSIP braided the SSIP components with the existing successful work of the State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG) awarded in 2012, and Alabama’s Plan 2020 to create demonstration sites in selected middle schools to be demonstration sites of exemplary models for effective co-teaching, co-planning, and positive behavior interventions and supports (PBIS). The model was grounded and supported within the research-based Implementation Science framework (Fixsen et al., 2005), Co-teaching (Friend & Cook, 2013), Co-planning (Ploessl et al., 2010), and Instructional Coaching (Knight, 2007). The synthesis of these variables, implemented with high fidelity, was intended to create effective inclusive environments for SWDs and to result in an improved school climate and culture for all students. The SSIP was designed to utilize one or more trained instructional coaches to work in each region (with two for Region 11). The SSIP Instructional Coaches were hired to provide follow-up support through coaching as part of an evidence-based professional development (PD) model (Brown et al., 2005) to middle school site personnel. Additionally, SSIP Instructional Coaches provide support to the district Implementation Teams who were provided PD in co-teaching, co-planning and PBIS (Tier II) (i.e., CHAMPS). These SSIP demonstration site and district Implementation Teams consisted of administrators, special education and general education teachers and staff working at selected SSIP Demonstration Site middle schools within the region. Linkages will continue to be developed and strengthened with the regional Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI), as well, to ensure that districts received specific emphasis upon literacy and strategic instruction. The SSIP Instructional Coaches for the SSIP demonstration sites attend RPT and other regional meetings, as needed. During SY 2014-2015, one SSIP Demonstration Site was selected for the implementation of Secondary Transition best practices around instruction and community-based vocational instruction (CBVI), with additional sites to be added for SY 2016-2017. SSIP Instructional Coaches with transition-specific expertise have been selected to work with each site to improve planning and practice for secondary transition. The ALSDE projects that new sites will be added each year to showcase best practices in secondary transition and improving instruction and transition services using evidence-based transition curricula, CBVI, and linkages with other agencies to improve students’ post-school success. Simultaneously, the ALSDE will be working to develop and improve the statewide infrastructure of policies, practices, and data usage designed to improve transition services leading to positive post-school outcomes for SWDs.

Page 3: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

3

Figure 1. The Alabama SSIP Model - Illustration of the variables that comprise the Alabama SSIP model as adapted from the Creating Effective Inclusive Environments demonstration project (SPDG).

Targeted technical assistance from the National Technical Assistance Center on Transition (NTACT) is being provided to support the ALSDE to improve secondary transition practices throughout the state. Each SSIP instructional coach has participated in evidence-based professional learning in Instructional Coaching 101 (Knight, 2007), Co-Teaching (Friend & Cook, 2013), Co-Planning (Ploessl et al., 2010), and evidence-based PBIS (i.e., Safe & Civil Schools) (Sprick, 2009) offered by the State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG). Following the first year of Exploration (SY 2014-2015), eight SSIP demonstration sites began working toward achieving a high-degree of fidelity of implementation within the evidence-based practices listed above, as measured by

external project consultants in order to determine demonstration status to offer visitation/observation opportunities to other school systems within the region, thereby expanding the scope and impact of the project over the next few years through scaling-up into additional schools and districts. The SSIP Instructional Coaches have also received ongoing training in the principles of the Implementation Science Framework and meet regularly (virtually, as well as on-site) as a Professional Learning Community to discuss progress, barriers, and program updates.

The Alabama SSIP and the Implementation Science Framework Competency Driver—Selection: As previously noted, the Alabama SSIP Model is grounded within the Implementation Science Framework. In the Competency Driver of the Implementation Science Framework, Selection, Training, and Coaching are essential components of successful, sustainable change. As of December 2015, demonstration sites in Regions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11 have been selected to work toward becoming middle school demonstration sites. The site in

Page 4: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

4

Region 9 is also implementing evidence-based practices around secondary transition. Ongoing selection efforts are continuing in regions 3, 7, and 8 to ensure appropriate site identification for the SSIP demonstration site project and to ensure that the sites selected to participate have concurrent academic need as well as faculty and administrative support for sustained change. Figure 2 shows the present map of the SSIP demonstration sites as of winter 2016. It should be noted that the site in Region 6 is exploring a scale-up to another school site within Region 6. The Implementation Science Framework Hexagon Tool, (Fixsen et al., 2005) will be used to explore the site’s readiness for inclusion within the project. Additional demonstration sites for effective secondary transition practices are being identified using the tool during winter and spring 2016, with more sites to be added during SY 2016-2017. Figure 2. Map of SSIP Regional Demonstration Sites

Page 5: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

5

Table 1. List of SSIP Demonstration Sites

Region LEA Demonstration Site Selection Year

1 Lauderdale County Brooks High School (7-12 Grade) Winter 2016 2 Athens City Athens Middle School Fall 2015 4 Hale County Greensboro Middle School Fall 2015 5 Midfield City Rutledge School Fall 2015 6 Calhoun County White Plains Middle School Fall 2015 7 Sylacauga City Nichols-Lawson Middle School Fall 2015 9 Elmore County Wetumpka Middle School Fall 2015 10 Monroe County Monroeville Middle School Winter 2016 11a Andalusia City Andalusia Junior High School Fall 2015 11b Enterprise City Coppinville Middle School Fall 2015

Competency Driver—Coaching: Criteria for selecting the successful instructional coach candidates have specified that the applicant possess classroom and administrative experience, with expertise in working with both administrators and teachers at the middle school level. The current SSIP Instructional Coaches are retired personnel who have been employed in Alabama school systems, and include retired special education administrators, principals, one retired LEA superintendent, a reading specialist, and a transition specialist. Ten SSIP Instructional Coaches have been hired as of December 2015, with additional applicants expressing interest. Effective coaching by appropriately-trained personnel has proven to be an essential component to support the implementation of evidence-based practices in co-planning/co-teaching and the implementation of PBIS practices (i.e., CHAMPS). The SSIP Instructional Coaches who are assisting with secondary transition have extensive experience within the area, and are able to assist school personnel to problem-solve regarding the potential barriers to implementation, such as scheduling, transportation, and linkages to other agencies. Competency Driver – Training: Initial professional learning and training in evidence-based practices [i.e., co-teaching, co-planning, and PBIS (i.e., CHAMPS) for the demonstration site teams] was conducted on February 3-5, 2015. During this time, the school teams co-planned with the SSIP and the ARI District Coaches to develop action plans designed to lead to the establishment and roll-out of the future demonstration sites. During February-May 2015, SSIP Instructional Coaches worked with their assigned Implementation Team to address the needs for each specific school. It is important to note that this model was designed to be implemented to reflect the strengths and needs of each individual site so that growth was “owned” by the Implementation Team and involved personnel. Therefore, the principles of change reflected in the Alabama SSIP Model will be the constant across sites but the process and decision-making within those parameters will be variables responsive to individual site needs. Additional training in schoolwide PBIS (i.e., Safe and Civil School Foundations; CHAMPS) and classroom PBIS behavioral approaches was conducted during spring 2015, as well as at the individual sites throughout the spring and summer (2015) months in conjunction with the AL

Page 6: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

6

SPDG training efforts. The ALSDE, SES Section, provided implementation grants to each SSIP demonstration site. Budgets included monies for the purchase of evidence-based intervention resources in Reading and Math, needed materials and supplies based on site needs as determined by the Implementation Teams. Full implementation of the demonstration sites began in fall 2015, and observational visits at one of the sites began during spring 2016, with other sites anticipating becoming “Demonstration Ready” within the 2016-2017 school year. In December 2015, in partnership with the Alabama SPDG, Randy Sprick, Ph.D of Safe & Civil Schools began working with multiple system-wide teams from the SSIP Demonstration Site systems in three-year cohorts (2015-2018) to scale-up implementation of schoolwide PBIS, Tier II, (i.e., Safe & Civil Schools Foundations) across additional schools. Organization and Leadership Drivers: Other critical variables are those found within the Leadership and Organizational Drivers that require the formation of active, functioning collaborative site and district Implementation Teams who receive training together and are, thus, able to guide implementation through the lens of evidence-based practice implementation and decision-making. The development and active implementation of these Site and District Implementation Teams have facilitated the essential “buy-in” component that has become a hallmark of the project’s success. Moreover, it is within these teams that ongoing data-discussions and data-based decisions are made to maximize teaching and learning outcomes. Many sites have developed “data rooms” with data posted on the walls to facilitate ongoing analysis and discussion (see Figure 3). Figure 3. Illustration of Greensboro Middle School’s data room where the teams meet to discuss progress and student instructional needs.

Full Exploration and Installation-stage implementation of the demonstration sites began in fall 2015, with each team meeting with staff from the ALSDE to discuss Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) detailing expectations and implementation agreements around each aspect of the SSIP Model. According to the MOUs, the SSIP demonstration site teams agreed to meet regularly to discuss implementation progress, barriers, and to examine student test and progress monitoring

Page 7: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

7

data. External consultants and evaluators worked with staff regarding fidelity of implementation and site progress along the continuum of demonstration status. One site has been deemed ready to host visits beginning spring 2016. An evaluation plan with a Project Logic Model has been developed to guide the evaluation and to ensure there are appropriate measures and feedback loops built within the evaluation design. This Evaluation Plan is included, as required, within Component #3: Evaluation (see pp. 41-61) along with evaluation results. It should be noted that the AL SSIP contains both a Logic Model Overview (found on p. 43) and a comprehensive Logic Model (found in Appendix III). EMERGING RESULTS Although the sites have been implementing the components of the AL SSIP Model for not quite one year, some emerging positive results for all students have been measured in several of the sites. For example, following the implementation of the schoolwide PBIS (i.e., Safe & Civil Schools Foundation) principles, one site has logged an 87 percent reduction in office discipline referrals for the first semester during SY 2015-2016; another site has noted decreases in the following from December 2014-December 2015: • 23 percent fewer after-school detentions; • 78 percent fewer in-school detentions; • 67 percent fewer students were removed from school buses for disciplinary reasons; • 67 percent fewer Saturday School sessions were used as a disciplinary method; and • 64 percent fewer students experienced out-of-school suspensions.

Student-teacher conferences increased by 13 percent and time-out was used 7 percent more than other, more exclusionary, methods. Academically, the same school has logged improved results according to its progress monitoring data, with the sharpest trajectory noted in the sixth-grade growth, with an increase of +9 percentage points in reading and +14 percentage points in math. Throughout the spring semester in 2015, the SSIP Instructional coach and consultants working with Alabama’s SSIP and SPDG visited the classrooms, modeled effective instructional strategies, and consulted with the teachers and administrators to review the school’s progress and provide constructive feedback to ensure fidelity of implementation of evidence-based practices in co-teaching, co-planning, and PBIS. The teachers in most sites reported improved collaborative relationships with each other and the administrators regularly conducted “walk-throughs” to provide feedback to the teachers. The SSIP Implementation Teams continued to meet regularly to discuss implementation issues, to problem-solve, and to examine formative data for each student in the school, as well as the ACT ASPIRE results when the state assessment results became available. In several sites, the teachers also included the students in the data discussions, assisting them to review their own data on the periodic assessments and to understand the skills they needed to focus upon to improve.

Page 8: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

8

SPOTLIGHT ON HALE COUNTY’S GREENSBORO MIDDLE SCHOOL: THE FIRST SSIP DEMONSTRATION SITE As has been previously mentioned and illustrated in Figure 2, the SSIP demonstration sites were selected across Alabama, reflecting the varying demographics to be found across Alabama. It is important to note that Hale County’s Greensboro Middle School is the first site to be judged “Demonstration Ready” by an external consultant. “Demonstration Ready” status indicates that the site has attained a high level of fidelity in co-planning and co-teaching and implementation of classroom PBIS (i.e., CHAMPS). Staff from other districts in the region and across the state are making plans for both virtual and on-site visits. Greensboro Middle School is a high-poverty, high-minority rural middle school with over 85 percent of its students eligible for free or reduced school lunch. Data from the 2015 Alabama Kid’s Count notes that Hale County faces multiple risk factors for poverty, such as higher unemployment rates (6.8 percent) than the 5.6 percent experienced state-wide; 38.8 percent of its children live in poverty, as compared to Alabama’s statewide 27.7 percent. In 2014, the per capita income for the county was just over $18,000 annually, which was at least $10,000 less than the per capita income for Alabama. Staff from the ALSDE, SES, and the AL SSIP’s external evaluator visited the school in January 2016. Classroom observations concurred with the reports from external consultants: co-planning and co-teaching was being implemented with a high level of fidelity, utilizing multiple approaches from Friend and Cook’s (2013) literature. The day the team visited, they observed the special education and general education teachers (co-teaching dyads) implementing the Stations and Parallel approaches (Friend & Cook) with a high-degree of fidelity. Student engagement measures in all observed classes revealed nearly 100 percent engagement among students during the lessons, with no negative behavioral events observed. Posters detailing the classroom PBIS (i.e., CHAMPS) expectations were posted in each classroom. Moreover, teachers exhibited a high level of positive engagement with students during instruction and the climate within each classroom and the entire school was positive and conducive to learning. Transitions in hallways were orderly and efficiently accomplished so that teachers and students maximized instructional time. During a meeting with the Greensboro Middle School principal and staff, the ALSDE visitors mentioned the District Attendance Award Banner displayed beside the school’s front door. The principal admitted that the school had, in fact, won the attendance award for two consecutive quarters. One visitor asked the names of the programs they were implementing that were responsible for such success and the principal smiled and replied quietly, "The students enjoy coming to school now.” As a result of the stronger collaboration among the faculty as well as with the district staff, the culture of the school has become more inclusive, as all teachers have taken ownership of all students, no longer drawing lines between general and special education students. Teachers stated they have observed that students are gaining confidence and becoming more engaged in class participation than ever before. The special education teacher spoke of her own professional growth through her increasing classroom responsibilities and the improvement she saw in her students. Her increased confidence inspired this young special education teacher to lead the construction of

Page 9: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

9

the “Reading Café”, (see Figure 4), a spacious reading area furnished with comfortable, locally-crafted seating and decorated by pennants from all Alabama universities hanging on the walls—a place where students could sit and read during class breaks, daring to dream of once-unimaginable futures at a state university. Figure 4. Illustration of Greensboro Middle School’s Reading Café.

Results from the first progress monitoring period from September to December indicated that students had made encouraging gains in the co-taught classes at Greensboro Middle School. In one inclusive class containing six students with IEPs, two of the six made gains of 20 points or better during the first progress monitoring on literacy and reading. The whole class data was based on 21 students: 11 students made gains of 25 points or better, eight students made no gains, and two students did not test. Specific gains were made in the areas of key ideas, vocabulary acquisition, and text complexity for students with IEPs. The largest gains were made in the areas of key ideas and text complexity.

Clearly, much work remains to be done to achieve Alabama’s ambitious SIMR of increasing the percentage of SWDs who are engaged in college or competitive employment after high school graduation. Barriers of poverty, disability, and internal and external risk factors that are unique to each SSIP demonstration site present tremendous obstacles to overcome in a state where about one in four of its students live in poverty. It would be counter-productive to believe that each site will show identical, consistent rates of progress throughout this project. Yet the district administrators and the faculty, SSIP Instructional Coach, and staff of Greensboro Middle School have created a culture of high expectations for student achievement and ambitious aspirations despite generations of poverty. These dedicated educators have shown us that zip code need not be destiny for the children and families living within its boundaries. Through intentional work guided by evidence-based practice and effective teamwork, they have kindled a flame that yields a bright and steady light, illuminating their students’ paths into richer and more fulfilling tomorrows.

Page 10: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

10

Phase I Updates Note: Alabama only included information from Phase I sections that contained changes or updates; there are no significant changes to the SIMR and improvement strategies from Phase I. Component #1: Data Analysis Stakeholder Involvement Alabama continues to convene meetings so that broad stakeholder engagement is elicited and supported around the continuous feedback loops needed to continue development and revision of the Alabama SSIP. Specifically, broad stakeholder meetings composed of general and special educators, ALSDE staff, parents, advocates, Institutes of Higher Education (IHE) staff, and other agency staff were facilitated in June and October 2015, and an update regarding the SSIP progress was provided to special education administrators and teachers at the Mega Conference in July 2015. The SSIP updates, including the draft AL SSIP Logic Model and emerging data from the SSIP demonstration sites, were shared in January 2016 with the Alabama Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP) to obtain input and advice from stakeholders and the public regarding evaluation plan development. An update to special education administrators was conducted in February 2016 at the Alabama Council of Administrators of Special Educators (ALA-CASE) Spring meeting to provide an overview of the Phase II SSIP and to showcase progress from one demonstration site. It should be noted that Stakeholder Involvement represents the ALSDE’s ongoing commitment of engagement throughout the SSIP process. Data Analysis Alabama continues to collect progress monitoring data from the demonstration sites for data sharing at public forums and stakeholder meetings. Also, data collection tools around evaluation are being developed for use to collect formative and summative data. Indicator 14 – Post-School Outcomes (PSO) Data indicated that the Alabama Met Target and demonstrated progress for Indicator 14B:

o FFY 2013 Actual Data = 62.35 percent. o FFY 2014 Target = 62.60 percent. o FFY 2014 Actual Data = 65.71 percent.

PSO survey administration frequency changed from a four-year administration to a two-year administration to facilitate a more relevant use of data for LEAs.

Indicator 13 – Secondary Transition Provided training on using the Transition Services page of the IEP. To increase the knowledge base of parents regarding secondary transition services, the ALSDE

provided access to and facilitated discussions around the Vanderbilt University IRIS module on Transition. The modules were also made available on the ALSDE Web site for public access, including teachers in the demonstration sites.

Page 11: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

11

Conducted three additional Parent Focus Group meetings, in conjunction with Alabama’s parent training and information (PTI) center, with plans to use results to guide the provision of information and resources to parents regarding transition.

Provided access to Alabama’s PTI Center’s Director to talk to special education coordinators on effective communication to address the “communication need” mentioned in Phase I transition. As a result, many special education coordinators scheduled the PTI to provide training within their districts.

Targeted work with the National Technical Assistance Center on Transition (NTACT) consultant Ms. Caroline MaGee to assess and improve the statewide infrastructure around transition services.

Component #2: Analysis of State Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report Exploring the use of NTACT’s State Toolkit for Examining Post-School Success (STEPSS)

for local and state data analysis

Alabama’s General Fund and Education Trust Fund (ETF) Budget $80 million were removed from the ETF to support the declining General Fund budget. The ETF contains growth revenue whereas the General Fund budget contains flat revenue

sources. Plan 2020: Alabama’s Infrastructure for Scale Up and Sustainability Extension for the ESEA Waiver was approved August 2015. However, with the passage of the

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), discussions remain ongoing regarding implementation following the expiration of the ESEA Waivers in August 2016.

Component #3: State-Identified Measurable Result Demonstration Sites During SY 2014-2015, middle schools within eight regions were selected as SSIP demonstrations sites were selected. These sites included varying demographics but with a commonality that all sites selected showed extensive gaps in performance between the “All Students” and “Special Education” subgroups. General and special education teachers, their administrators, and SSIP Instructional Coaches convened in February 2015 for their first professional learning sessions as SSIP demonstration sites. These evidence-based training sessions included effective co-planning and co-teaching approaches according to the literature of Friend and Cook (2013) as well as implementation of the CHAMPS classroom management PBIS framework from Safe & Civil Schools (Sprick, 2009). The SSIP Instructional Coaches and site Implementation Teams utilized the Hexagon Tool (Fixsen & Blasé, 2008) to develop action plans based on the Implementation Science Exploration Stage. Funds were provided to each site to purchase evidence-based instructional/intervention programs in reading and/or math, secondary transition materials, consultant time, and additional evidence-

Page 12: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

12

based PD opportunities, especially around schoolwide PBIS (i.e., Safe and Civil School Foundations) training for all schools within the feeder patterns. During Fall 2015, two more regional SSIP demonstration sites were identified (one in South Alabama and one in North Alabama) to implement the SSIP Model, bringing the total sites to ten situated in most geographical areas of the state. It is anticipated that two more sites will be added during fall 2016 for SY 2016-2017. A map showing the location of the current regional SSIP demonstration sites is included in Figure 2. It should be noted that, as of February 2016, one site has been determined to be “Demonstration Ready” and began to host both virtual and on-site visitors. The “Demonstration Ready” status was determined through rigorous fidelity of implementation assessments and observations of co-planning and co-taught classes by external consultants according to an evaluation tool. In addition, the CHAMPS model was judged to be implemented with fidelity in the co-taught classrooms. This was seen as a strongly functioning site with a strong district-level Implementation Team, consistent with the Implementation Science framework. Strong engagement from both teachers and students (both general and special education) has been consistently observed. It should be further noted that this site is a rural, high-poverty, minority school located in one of the lowest-performing areas of the entire state (Hale County). Other sites are very close to being at the “Demonstration Ready” level of implementation and are anticipated to begin hosting visitors before the close of the 2015-2016 school year. The secondary transition demonstration site continues implementation during SY 2015-2016 and the ALSDE is adding two additional secondary transition sites during spring 2016. More sites linked to the SSIP demonstration site feeder patterns will be added in fall 2016. Additionally, targeted work from the NTACT to the ALSDE will enable staff to facilitate the STEPSS program to assist LEAs to use their transition indicator data (Indicators 1, 2, 13, and 14) to make data-based decisions. State Identified Measurable Result (SIMR) The Alabama SIMR corresponds to SPP/APR Indicator 14b: Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school. Table 2. SPP/APR Targets for Part B Indicator 14b (Updated 2014 Results)

SPP/APR Targets (in Percent) for Part B Indicator 14b, Baseline and Targets

FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Target 14b ≥ 62.35%

(Baseline) 62.60% 62.85% 63.10% 63.35% 63.60%

Results 65.71% - - - -

Page 13: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

13

Component #4: Selection of Coherent Improvement Strategies Table 3. Coherent Improvement Strategies and Activities

1. Provide high-quality, engaging instruction and co-teaching in the middle school general education classroom.

2. Offer safe and supportive learning environments to middle schools through the CHAMPS and Foundations Safe & Civil Schools evidence-based programs.

3. Create a system and culture for supporting SWDs, teachers, and administrators through implementation science practices.

4. Create and publicize a model of comprehensive, research-based transition services for high school SWDs through the development of transition demonstration sites.

5. Collaborate with transition groups to coordinate the statewide transition infrastructure and strengthen the delivery of transition services from state to student.

6. Manage project activities based on the implementation science practices of selection, training, coaching, data/evaluation, and systemic improvement.

7. Engage parents and stakeholders in training, information sharing, and feedback for program improvement.

Page 14: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

14

Phase II Component #1: Infrastructure Development

State Infrastructure Improvement Fiscal. In order to develop and improve the Alabama state infrastructure as related to the selected SIMR, the ALSDE has invested resources designed to improve the state infrastructure. Specifically, the state has provided funds from SES to facilitate hiring SSIP Instructional Coaches to guide the installation of multiple SSIP demonstration sites within regional in-service center locations throughout the state to address improvement in reading proficiency and secondary transition. This will be accomplished by utilizing evidence-based PD, instructional coaching, and linkages with other ALSDE initiatives. The specific role of the instructional coach is to provide direct support including job-embedded technical assistance and consultation to LEA personnel (i.e., special education coordinators, special and general education collaborative teachers, and other administrators) to ensure the effective implementation of evidence-based practices around co-teaching/co-planning, PBIS, and secondary transition throughout the SSIP demonstration sites. It is further important to note that each site will work with the Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI) and the Alabama Math Science and Technology Initiatives (AMSTI), as appropriate, throughout the state to implement challenging content. Training and Technical Assistance. Another projected infrastructure change is to provide 12 regional staff in addition to the identified SSIP Instructional Coaches by placing one within each region to support and coach improvements in special education instruction. These regional staff would work closely with the SSIP demonstration site coaches to scale up evidence-based practices around instruction, behavior management, and secondary transition within the region. Moreover, in order to scale up coaching personnel, additional retired part-time education personnel are being recruited to serve as SSIP Instructional Coaches and mentors for special education staff. These retired part-time staff will work closely with the regional staff to promote evidence-based practices implemented at SSIP demonstration sites throughout each region of the state. Interagency Linkages. Additionally, the Career Technical Education (CTE) Section within the ALSDE is working with SES in collaboration with Alabama Department of Rehabilitation Services (ADRS) to provide job coaches in LEAs throughout the state to assist with implementation of community-based vocational experiences. Another infrastructure change is the retooling of the State Interagency Transition Team (SITT) to facilitate a more coordinated set of activities around secondary transition throughout the state. Moreover, this will ensure inclusion of members of other transition workgroups and streamline communication as well as decrease duplication of effort. Monitoring. One of the major changes in the ALSDE’s infrastructure is the change in its role from that of only compliance monitoring to one of partnership and differentiated support. This change allows support be provided to each system that is customized and based on data analysis and collaborative feedback from stakeholders. Monitoring results provide information to inform the provision of technical assistance, especially targeted and intensive technical assistance that is customized to meet the district needs.

Page 15: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

15

Other potential infrastructure improvements include externally-placed staff within districts instead of only centrally-located staff at the ALSDE. These staff will assist and support the LEAs to implement the coherent improvement strategies and activities through the use of ongoing coaching, consultation, and evidence-based PD. Moreover, the use of the Implementation Science Framework to support the SSIP model through the leadership of district- and site-based Implementation Teams deepens the commitment toward sustaining and institutionalizing change. In addition, installing multiple SSIP demonstration sites within regional in-service center locations throughout the state enables the SES to focus efforts and resources to implement effective inclusive practices, PBIS, and evidence-based reading instruction in middle schools and implement high-quality secondary transition practices in high schools. With respect to providing evidence-based training around secondary transition, the ALSDE has linked with NTACT for targeted technical assistance as well as to its partner, the Transition Coalition. Specifically, the ALSDE has been engaging with NTACT to receive targeted technical assistance related to the use of a district self-assessment tool around the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Secondary Transition, and the related indicators connected to secondary transition. Further, as a result of initial conversations with NTACT, it was determined that the SITT and multiple other stakeholder groups around secondary transition needed to be coordinated to facilitate a more cohesive representative body to guide planning and implementation around secondary transition services across the state. The ALSDE expects that these substantive infrastructure development activities both within the SSIP demonstration sites and within the state as a whole will work to drive improvement and achievement of Alabama’s SIMR to improve post-school engagement in higher education and competitive employment for students with IEPs. Current State Improvement Plans and Initiatives As articulated in Phase I of Alabama’s SSIP, the current initiatives in the state include the Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI), Alabama’s Math Science and Technology Initiative (AMSTI), the Alabama State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG), and Plan 2020: Alabama’s Infrastructure for Scale-Up and Sustainability. In addition, other ALSDE Sections (i.e., Prevention and Support Services, Federal Programs, and Research and Evaluation) continue to engage as internal stakeholders offering input regarding their areas of expertise. The Alabama Reading Initiative. District ARI coaches participate on SSIP demonstration site and district Implementation Teams to partner with SSIP Instructional Coaches to improve reading outcomes. The ARI coaches also participate with the SSIP and SPDG staff in evidence-based training on instructional coaching offered by Knight (2007), as well as co-teaching and co-planning (Friend & Cook, 2013). The School Counseling and Guidance Section of the ALSDE will participate with SSIP and SPDG staff in the training for mapping of the schedule for effective co-teaching and co-planning provided to SSIP demonstration sites and coaches in order to facilitate effective scheduling practices for SWDs. This is accomplished through coordination and collaboration with the RPT, which is comprised of staff from all sections of the ALSDE.

Page 16: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

16

The Alabama’s Math Science and Technology Initiative. As additional sites broaden implementation to include mathematics and science, AMSTI will engage with SSIP Implementation Team members to improve mathematics instruction and performance in math for SWDs. Similarly, this will be accomplished through coordination and collaboration with the RPT. The Alabama State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG). The SPDG model that has been successfully implemented in multiple sites around the state since 2012, has been used as the AL SSIP model. The model, based on Knight’s (2007) work around the “Big Four”, including evidence-based training in co-teaching, co-planning, PBIS, content expertise, and formative assessment to create effective inclusive environments for SWDs served in general education environments. Moreover, the model is grounded within the Implementation Science Framework (see Figure 1). Specific information on how the state aligns and leverages the current improvement plans and how this work will impact SWDs across the state will be discussed in greater detail under the Support for LEA Implementation. It is important to note, as detailed within the Phase 1 Data Analysis, approximately 85 percent of Alabama’s SWDs are educated within general education classrooms for more than 80 percent of the school day. Therefore, the intent of the SSIP is to improve instruction in these inclusive environments for SWDs, thereby, improving proficiency and preparing SWDs for challenging academic content in high school as a bridge to post school success. Figure 1: Alabama’s SSIP Model

Page 17: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

17

Plan 2020: Alabama’s Infrastructure for Scale-Up and Sustainability. PLAN 2020 is the strategic plan for scale-up and sustainability for education in Alabama. The goal of this plan is to prepare all students to be successful in college and/or career upon graduation from high school. A “prepared graduate” is defined in PLAN 2020 as one whom: 1. Possesses the knowledge and skills needed to enroll and succeed in credit-bearing, first-year

courses at a two- or four-year college, trade school, technical school without the need for remediation

2. Possesses the ability to apply core academic skills to real-world situations through collaboration with peers in problem solving, precision and punctuality in delivery of a product, and a desire to be a life-long learner

Four priorities listed below establish the foundation of the plan: Alabama's 2020 Learners Alabama's 2020 Support Systems Alabama's 2020 Schools/Systems Alabama's 2020 Professionals Each of the four priorities contains objectives, strategies, and targets/indicators designed to focus all available resources, completely address all critical aspects needed for each component, and make significant measureable progress by the year 2020. Alabama’s 2020 Learners PLAN is shown below. Figure 5. Alabama’s Plan 2020 – Learners Objectives

PLAN 2020 – LEARNERS OBJECTIVES • All students perform at or above proficiency and show continuous improvement (achievement/growth) • All students succeed (gap closure) • Every student graduates from high school (grad rate) • Every student graduates high school prepared (college- and career-readiness) STRATEGIES • Develop and implement a unified Pre-K through college- and career-readiness plan • Develop and adopt college- and career-ready aligned standards in all subject areas • Create and implement a balanced and meaningful assessment and accountability system • Align available programmatic and fiscal resources to support local school needs in the area of instruction MEASURES OF SUCCESS–BY 2016 • Increase the four-year Cohort Graduation Rate • Increase the number of students who are college- and career-ready as measured by receiving a Business and

Industry Recognized Credential upon graduation • Increase the percentage of students who are college- and career-ready as measured by the High School Graduate

College and Career Readiness Index of the ACT

Page 18: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

18

• Reduce the number of students requiring remedial courses in reading and mathematics in two- and four-year colleges

• Improve the percentage of students performing at or above proficiency on the ACT Aspire in 3rd through 8th grade reading

• Improve the percentage of students performing at or above proficiency on the ACT Aspire in 3rd through 8th grade mathematics

• Decrease the gap on the ACT Aspire combined reading and mathematics scores for 3rd through 8th grade students and the composite ACT score between groups of students

Implementation of PLAN 2020 will improve student, including SWDs, growth and achievement, close the achievement gap, increase the graduation rate, and increase the number of students graduating high school who are college- and career-ready and prepared to be successful in our global society (see www.alsde.edu for more information on Alabama’s PLAN 2020). PLAN 2020 involves the work of each Division and Section in the ALSDE and is part of the ‘braided’ work of the AL SSIP. Staff in Charge with Implementing Infrastructure Changes. The SES staff with broad stakeholder input will be responsible for and provide oversight for implementing the changes to secondary transition infrastructure, resources needed, expected outcomes, and timelines for completing improvement efforts. The SES staff in charge includes: • State Superintendent • Director of Learning Supports • SES Program Coordinator • The SES Transition Team • The SES Data Team • The SES Monitoring Team • The SES Fiscal Team • SPDG Staff Table 4. Infrastructure Changes, Resources Needed, Expected Long-Term Outcomes, and Timelines

Infrastructure Changes Resources Needed Expected Long-term Outcomes Timeline

Fiscal Provide start-up grant funds to new demonstration sites and implementation grants for continuing sites

Federal funds Resources will support priority programs and activities for SSIP demonstration sites

Spring 2016

Training and Technical Assistance Provide teachers at demonstration sites training, coaching, & resources to support SWDs in general education classrooms

10-12 demonstration sites are formed and prepared to model practices; At least 3 transition demonstration sites created

Increased ACT Aspire & progress monitoring scores at demonstration sites; Decreased achievement gap between SWD and SWOD

Spring 2015 & ongoing

Page 19: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

19

Training and Technical Assistance Provide comprehensive transition activities and supports in SSIP demonstration sites

Transition curriculum & CBVI

Increase in Indicator 1; Decrease in Indicator 2; Increase in Indicators 14a & 14b; Increased community work placements

Spring 2015 & ongoing

Training and Technical Assistance & Interagency Linkages Provide teachers professional development (PD) & resources to provide transition supports

PD/coaching on transition practices

Increase fidelity to practice; SSIP demonstration sites provide PD & TA to LEAs within region

Spring 2015 & ongoing

Interagency Linkages Coordinate with transition groups to develop a state transition collaborative

State transition groups joint meetings

Increased communication among transition partners; Aligned community supports

Fall 2016 & ongoing

Monitoring Monitoring data for Indicators 1, 2, 13, & 14 will be utilized through the STEPSS tool

State and local data management

Improvement in Indicators 1, 2, 13, & 14

Fall 2016-2017

For additional information about inputs and resources, refer to the AL SSIP Logic Model (p. 43) in Component #3: Evaluation. ALSDE Interoffice Involvement. The mechanism used to involve additional ALSDE offices is that of networking and reporting of results within the SSIP demonstration sites, utilizing linkages across the RPT structures. Additionally, the SES staff works with personnel from multiple ALSDE sections and other divisions during regularly convening workgroups to provide updates, status reports, and to seek input regarding the SSIP infrastructure development and implementation, as the SSIP impacts progress and achievement of other departmental initiatives, such as Plan 2020. Additionally, the CTE Section of the ALSDE has joined forces with SES to work with the (ADRS) to provide additional job coaches for school districts to improve transition outcomes for students. The ALSDE works closely with the Alabama Department of Mental Health through it School-Based Mental Health initiative, thereby improving social-emotional outcomes for students. Additionally, SES meets with the Alabama Multiple-Needs Council on an ongoing basis to link with other agencies to provide services for children in need. Moreover, in an effort to involve multiple offices within the ALSDE, as well as other State agencies and stakeholders in the improvement of the State’s infrastructure, SES held its second broad stakeholder engagement task force meeting to discuss the State’s efforts to support LEAs in implementing evidence-based practices and to create an evaluation plan to gauge improvements in the SIMR in October 2015. This stakeholder meeting was convened as follow-up to the previous large meeting convened in October 2014, and utilized the results generated from multiple stakeholder meetings held throughout the year (e.g., SEAP meetings, Mega-Conference, CASE, etc.) to elicit further input from additional stakeholders.

Page 20: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

20

The broad stakeholder group consisted of ALSDE staff from the Office of Learning Supports, (i.e., the SES Section, Prevention and Supports, and Federal Programs), Office of Student Learning (i.e., Student Assessment, Alabama Reading Initiative, and Alabama Math and Science Technology Initiative), Research and Development, parents of SWDs, LEA staff (e.g., coordinators of special education; general and special education teachers; school-level administrators), institutions of higher education (IHE) staff, parent training and information (PTI) center staff, specialized treatment center (STC) staff, representatives of other state agencies (e.g., ADRS), representatives from parent and advocacy groups, and community organizational representatives. The task force meeting consisted of both whole group and small group formats. During whole group, task force members received content information, to include an overview of the SSIP (Phases I and II), Support for LEA Implementation, Implementation Science, SSIP Infrastructure Development and SSIP Evaluation Design. During small group, task force members were divided into three groups: Infrastructure Development, Support for LEA Implementation, and Evaluation Design. Each group, within its relative area of focus, was asked to consider improvement efforts that the ALSDE could employ to support the implementation of the SSIP and to promote collaboration within the ALSDE and among other State agencies. After reviewing the SIMR and the Theory of Action, task force members in the Infrastructure Development group decided that the State’s focus should be centered on the ALSDE’s capacity to improve the provision of secondary transition services. In particular, the group was asked to consider the following question: Steps, Efforts and Tasks to Improve Secondary Transition Services. The task force members identified several obstacles that may adversely impact a school and/or district to provide appropriate secondary transition services, to include a lack of knowledge regarding secondary transition (e.g., administrators, teachers, parents); insufficient time allotted in the master schedule to provide transition services; lack of communication and interagency collaboration; and lack of resources due to funding constraints. Nonetheless, the task force members noted that in order to assist schools and districts to improve secondary transition services, the ALSDE must communicate the importance of the provision of services to school administrators. The task force members argued that many school-level administrators lack extensive backgrounds in the field of special education. Thus, many may have limited knowledge regarding the Part B IDEA requirements around secondary transition. The task force members stated that providing PD to administrators is vital. Additionally, task force members communicated that general [and special] education teachers could benefit from more PD in secondary transition, as well. Other themes that were articulated by task force members include encouraging teachers and/or IEP Teams to begin discussing post-secondary transition as early as middle school (i.e., sixth grade); offering a transition class that is more inclusive of all secondary students (e.g., general education and special education students); and creating more pilot transition demonstration sites in rural areas and, once the sites have been determined “Demonstration Ready”, allow other schools and districts to conduct site visits.

Page 21: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

21

Multiple stakeholders, including those serving on the task force, will continue to be involved in Alabama’s SSIP Project by utilizing multiple methods, including virtual and on-site meetings, especially around evaluation issues and implementation progress.

Page 22: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

22

Component #2: Support for LEA Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices (EBPs)

LEA Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices (EBPs) The ALSDE, SES, has identified ten SSIP demonstration sites as of spring 2016 (see Table 1). Since February 2015, staff from the sites have been engaged with ongoing training around evidence-based practices. Moreover, as is consistent with the Implementation Science Framework (Fixsen & Blasé, 2008), trained SSIP Instructional Coaches have been provided to each site in order to assist them with implementation of evidence-based practices, including co-planning and co-teaching, positive behavior interventions and supports, and in some cases, secondary transition. During periodic visits from external consultants to the SSIP project, the fidelity of implementation of co-teaching and co-planning for instruction and behavior are observed and evaluated in order to determine whether a site is “Demonstration Ready” to host visitors to the site. The fiscal support for SSIP instructional coaching staff has been provided through SES funds. The Alabama SPDG has provided training for the SSIP and SPDG Instructional Coaches and training for the demonstration site staff, consistent with the approved grant award goals and objectives. The budgets were developed by the SSIP district and site Implementation Teams, under the leadership of the SSIP Instructional Coaches. An MOU was developed for each site to set forth the elements and conditions of the SSIP. For Phase II implementation during SY 2015-2016, two additional sites have been identified and are receiving training and support from SSIP Instructional Coaches. At this point, one site has been deemed “Demonstration Ready” due to the high fidelity of implementation of co-teaching, co-planning, and PBIS practice observed by external consultants and has hosted visitors to the site. Table 5. Implementation of EBPs – Coherent Improvement Strategies (Note: A comprehensive Logic Model may be found in Component #3: Evaluation)

Coherent Improvement

Strategies

Evidence of Implementation Timeline Role/Responsible

Person

1. Provide high-quality, engaging instruction and co-teaching in the middle school general education classroom.

Identify 12 SSIP demonstration sites to address improvement in reading proficiency and secondary transition by utilizing evidence-based professional development (PD), instructional coaching, and

• Identified 8 SSIP demonstration sites by Winter 2015; Added two sites in Fall 2015; Total 10

• Identification of two more SSIP demonstration sites (Total 12)

SY 2014-2015 and Fall 2016 Summer--Fall 2016 Scale-up ongoing

SSIP Team, SPDG Team

Page 23: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

23

Coherent Improvement

Strategies

Evidence of Implementation Timeline Role/Responsible

Person

linkages with other ALSDE initiatives. Provide evidence-based training for middle school staff at identified implementation sites in co-teaching, co-planning, PBIS, and instructional coaching.

• Sign-in sheets • Pre- and Post-training

evaluations

Winter/Spring 2015 (initial training); on-going

SSIP Team, SPDG Team, Consultants.

Select, interview, hire, and train instructional coaches to assign to each SSIP demonstration site.

• Hired SSIP Instructional Coaches

• Contracts • Job announcements

posted for additional instructional coaches as sites are added

SY 2014-2015 SY 2015-2016

SES Program Coordinator, SSIP Team, SPDG Team, ALSDE Personnel & Human Resources Staff.

2. Offer safe and supportive learning environments to middle schools through the CHAMPS and Foundations Safe & Civil Schools evidence-based programs.

Provide evidence-based training for instructional coaches in co-teaching, co-planning, behavior, and instructional coaching by the Alabama SPDG. In collaboration with AL SPDG, SSIP demonstration sites and their feeder patterns will participate in a

• Sign-in sheets • Pre- and Post-training

evaluations

• Safe & Civil Schools survey data from parents, students, teachers.

SY 2014-2015 and SY 2015-2016 Beginning SY 2015-2016 until SY 2017-2018

SSIP Team, SPDG Team, Consultants. AL SPDG/SSIP Team, SES Staff, District and Site Implementation Team,

Page 24: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

24

Coherent Improvement

Strategies

Evidence of Implementation Timeline Role/Responsible

Person

three-year Foundations project with Safe & Civil Schools.

• School data (suspensions/expulsions, office referrals, absentees, etc.)

Consultants.

3. Create a system and culture for supporting SWDs, teachers, and administrators through implementation science practices.

Select regional demonstration site locations for each region consistent with the Exploration Stage of the Implementation Science Framework.

• Selection criteria • Internal stakeholder

recommendations • NIRN Hexagon Tool

Spring 2015 Fall 2015

SSIP Team, SPDG Team, Consultants.

Convene ongoing evidence-based training for site and district Implementation Teams to support the implementation of evidence-based practices.

• Professional development sign-in sheets

• Pre-and post-training evaluations

Spring 2015 SSIP/SPDG Team Evaluator.

4. Create and publicize a model of comprehensive, research-based transition services for high school SWDs through the development of transition demonstration sites.

Provide training for high school staff at participating implementation sites in secondary transition best practices.

• Sign-in sheets • Pre- and Post-training

evaluations

Winter/Spring 2015 (initial training); on-going

SES Transition Team, Evidence-Based Consultants, NTACT.

Recruit, select, hire, and train experienced transition coaches

• Job announcements • Hiring criteria • Coaches hired • Evaluation data

SY 2014-2015 SY 2015-2016 SY 2016-2017 ongoing

SES Program Coordinator, Transition Team, SSIP/SPDG Team.

Page 25: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

25

Coherent Improvement

Strategies

Evidence of Implementation Timeline Role/Responsible

Person

to provide ongoing coaching to teachers within the transition demonstration sites. Examine secondary transition policy, practices, and resources to guide the statewide implementation of evidence-based secondary transition services.

• Revised IEP transition pages;

• Transition policy documents and resources;

• Modules posted on ALSDE web site

Annually SY 2016-2017 Ongoing

SES Transition Team, State Interagency Transition Team (SITT); NTACT targeted TA; Other agency linkages.

Link with the Alabama SPDG and Alabama PTI to provide secondary transition resources to parents.

• Transition Module for Families

• IRIS Transition Module • Identified sites

Fall 2014 and ongoing

SES Transition Team, Alabama SPDG, Alabama PTI.

Identify at least three secondary transition demonstration sites to demonstrate best practices in secondary transition services.

• Site identification • Contracts • Site Implementation

Team • Selection criteria • Internal stakeholder

recommendation

Winter/Spring 2015; SY 2016-2017

SPDG Team, SSIP Team.

Increase the number of secondary transition demonstration sites each year to host regional visitors and provide resources to other LEAs regarding secondary transition.

• Site identification • Contracts • Site Implementation

Team • Selection criteria • Internal stakeholder

recommendation

Spring 2016 and ongoing

SES Transition Team, SPDG Team.

Page 26: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

26

Coherent Improvement

Strategies

Evidence of Implementation Timeline Role/Responsible

Person

5. Collaborate with transition groups to coordinate the statewide transition infrastructure and strengthen the delivery of transition services from state to student.

Revise the Alabama Post-School Outcomes Survey administration schedule to ensure that LEAs collect data bi-annually.

• New LEA Post School Outcomes Survey schedule

Spring 2016 SES Program Coordinator and SES Administrator (Indicator 14 staff).

Disseminate resources and information to teachers and parents highlighting strategies that improve student performance.

• Presentations • Publications • Training resources

Spring 2016 and ongoing

SES staff, SES Transition Team.

Collaborate with national TA Centers (e.g., National Center for Systemic Improvement, NCSI; National Technical Assistance Center on Transition, NTACT; IDEA Data Center, IDC).

• TA received • Resources accessed and

used • TA request submitted to

NTACT • TA utilized from NCSI

for stakeholder meeting (Implementation Science presentation); IDC meetings attended (May 2015, June 2016)

SY 2016-2017 and ongoing SY 2016-2017 and ongoing

SES Program Coordinator and relevant SES staff

6. Manage project activities based on the implementation science practices of selection, training, coaching, data/evaluation, and systemic improvement.

Conduct school team interviews to determine implementation readiness and site fit consistent with Exploration Stage of the Implementation

• MOU • Completed Hexagon

Tool: Exploring Context (NIRN, 2013)

• Completed Stages of Implementation Analysis: Where are We? Tool (NIRN, YEAR)

Winter 2015 New MOU for 2015-2016 MOUs for all sites by SY 2016-2017.

SSIP Team /SPDG Team. SSIP Instructional Coaches.

Page 27: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

27

Coherent Improvement

Strategies

Evidence of Implementation Timeline Role/Responsible

Person

Science Framework.

• External Consultant visits throughout SY 2015-2016

• Ongoing Begin the Installation Stage and Initial Implementation Stage with ongoing support from assigned instructional coaches in selected demonstration sites.

• Completed activity reports

• Completed fidelity tools

Fall 2015 and ongoing

SSIP Team; Consultants, and Coaches.

Conduct coaching sessions and classroom observations with teachers.

• Completed activity reports/logs

• Training sign-in sheets • Evaluations

Winter 2015 – Winter 2016

SSIP Instructional Coaches; External Evaluator and Consultants.

Develop budgets for resources and evidence-based training for each site and feeder pattern school.

• Approved budgets Winter 2015 – Fall 2016

Local SSIP Instructional Coaches and staff; SES SSIP Team (budget approval).

Collect, analyze and review progress monitoring data on a regular basis to determine student trajectories and to address performance needs.

• Data meeting logs • Student outcome data • Completed activity

reports/logs

Fall 2015 and on-going

SSIP Instructional Coaches and External Evaluator/consultants.

Lead site and district Implementation Team staff to analyze local infrastructure to determine strengths and weaknesses,

• Completed analysis and results

• Completed activity reports

• Site/district Implementation Team responses based on Cascading Logic Model

Spring 2015 and on-going

SSIP Team/Consultants.

Page 28: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

28

Coherent Improvement

Strategies

Evidence of Implementation Timeline Role/Responsible

Person

including feeder pattern priorities.

(Ask “How” Five Times)

Establish and utilize a Professional Learning Community to reflect on demonstration site implementation.

• Multiple venues to collaborate;

• Regularly-scheduled SSIP Instructional Coaches meetings

• SSIP Coaches meeting minutes/agenda

Spring 2015 and ongoing

SSIP Team/ Consultants.

Convene monthly meetings of SSIP Coaches to facilitate shared implementation successes, barriers, and to enable cross-fertilization of effective practices and to conduct ongoing training in Implementation Science

• SSIP Instructional Coaches Meetings

• SSIP Coaches meeting minutes/agenda

Spring 2015 and ongoing

SES staff, SSIP Team/Consultants.

Implement the evidence-based training in co-teaching, co-planning, behavior, and instructional coaching.

• 50% or more of intended practitioners are using the innovation with fidelity and good outcomes

Spring 2016 and on-going

SSIP Local Teams/ SSIP Evaluator/Consultants.

Host visitors from other LEAs to view the implementation of evidence-based training (Full Implementation Stage).

• Networking of school personnel within and across schools, districts and region

Spring 2016 and on-going, as sites are judged “Demonstration Ready” by external consultants

SSIP Local Teams/External Evaluator/Consultants.

Present at meetings and/or state conferences on the implementation of

• Demonstration site presentations

Began Summer 2015, continuing at state conferences in Spring/Summer

District Implementation Teams, SES Staff

Page 29: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

29

Coherent Improvement

Strategies

Evidence of Implementation Timeline Role/Responsible

Person

evidence-based practices.

2016 and beyond.

7. Engage parents and stakeholders in training, information sharing, and feedback for program improvement (communication strategy).

The ALSDE will convene multiple stakeholder meetings across groups, including SEAP members, parent groups, and community and professional settings to elicit contributions and feedback for SSIP program improvement.

• Stakeholder Proceedings • Sign-in Sheets

Ongoing SSIP Team/SES Staff.

SES will collaborate with the AL PTI around development and dissemination of relevant resources for parents and other stakeholders related to evidence-based practices, including transition services.

• Contracts/Purchase Orders with AL PTI

• Resource materials • Evaluation data

Ongoing AL PTI SES Staff SSIP/SPDG Team.

The AL SPDG and the AL PTI will convene parent focus groups and/or interviews to elicit feedback and perceptions about progress of the SSIP related to parent concerns, including transition

• Evaluation data • Meeting notes • Sign-in sheets

SY 2014-2015 and Ongoing

AL PTI SES Staff SSIP/SPDG Team.

Page 30: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

30

Coherent Improvement

Strategies

Evidence of Implementation Timeline Role/Responsible

Person

information and resources.

Selection of EBPs Implementation. The Alabama SSIP is anchored into the Implementation Science Framework and the Implementation Drivers set the parameters in operating projects. Specific examples of this include selection of the sites, stages of implementation. The National Implementation Research Network (NIRN) analyzed over 30 years of empirical literature on the implementation of innovations and interventions in education, business, and other fields (Fixsen, et al., 2005, retrieved from http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/). A framework for effective implementation was identified, as well as developmental stages of implementation. Implementation is defined as a specified set of activities designed to put into practice an activity or program of known dimensions.…implementation processes are purposeful and are described in sufficient detail such that independent observers can detect the presence and strength of the ‘‘specific set of activities’’ (Fixsen et al., 2005, p. 5). The NIRN recognized that the science of intervention related to developing evidence-based practices had improved with manuals that clarified interventions, and fidelity measures. A conceptual framework was created to guide effective organizational implementation of a specified intervention model while asserting that effective implementation requires careful consideration of (a) core intervention components, (b) core implementation components, and (c) stages of implementation (see below). Core Intervention components: 1. Clear definition of the model 2. Characteristics of the target population and how the chosen model addresses them 3. Alternative models for addressing that population and why those alternatives were not selected 4. Theory base of the chosen model 5. Chosen model’s theory of change Core Implementation components: 1. Organizational context and readiness 2. Facilitative administration (structures and practice), (3) systems level interventions to support

direct service 3. Model fidelity assessment in direct service and within the organization 4. Staff selection and training 5. Staff coaching and supervision 6. Selection of purveyors who provide consultation and training that supports these drivers of

program implementation Stages of Implementation: NIRN suggested the implementation of an intervention model is not an event, but a two to four year process. Stages and drivers are not linear or separate; each is embedded

Page 31: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

31

in the other in interesting combinations. Outcomes are processed throughout the implementation stages: 1. Exploration Stage 2. Installation Stage 3. Initial Implementation Stage 4. Full Implementation Stage Instructional Coaching • The Kansas Coaching Project’s Center for Research on Learning (Instructional Coaching

Group) (http://instructionalcoach.org/about/about-coaching) defined instructional coaches as “on-site professional developers who teach educators how to use proven instructional methods. To be successful in this role, coaches must be skilled in a variety of roles, including public relations guru, communicator extraordinaire, master organizer and, of course, expert educator” (n.d.). The tasks of the instructional coaches include: • Marketing their services: Instructional coaches hold brief meetings with (implementation)

teams or teachers to explain goals, interventions/practices, and the support they can provide. They allow time for questions and provide a means for teachers to indicate they are interested in working with the coach.

• Analyzing needs of teachers: Instructional coaches meet with teachers at convenient times to identify the most pressing needs and to discuss possible evidenced-based interventions that might help address those needs.

• Observing classes: Instructional coaches observe classes being taught by the collaborating teachers to note the overall progress.

• Collaborating on interventions: Together, instructional coaches and teachers identify the most pressing needs. When necessary, instructional coaches and teachers collaborate to develop an [action] plan for implementing the chosen instructional method.

• Modeling: As teachers observe, instructional coaches may demonstrate how the new intervention should be implemented. In some cases, instructional coaches provide checklists or some other form of observation tool so teachers know to watch for specific teaching behaviors.

• Providing a loop of feedback-modeling-observing-feedback: The nature of the instructional coaching process allows for continuous communication. After the observations, instructional coaches meet with teachers to discuss how the teachers implemented the intervention. Coaches provide validation along with suggestions for improvement. The communication may continue with the instructional coach modeling, observing, and providing more feedback depending on the needs of the teacher.

• Building networks for change: Instructional coaches work with groups to establish [implementation] teams or professional learning communities that may pave the way for interventions to be implemented consistently.

• Instructional coaching is about improving instruction by understanding the complexity of helping adults, embracing partnership principles, and using a coaching cycle (Knight, 2014). Cornett and Knight (2009) indicated teachers were more likely to implement a new intervention/strategy when supported by an instructional coach after attending an afterschool workshop compared to only attending an after-school workshop

Page 32: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

32

• Teachers used the new intervention/strategy at a higher quality when supported by instructional coaching as opposed to only attending the workshop

• Teachers self-selected to implement a new intervention/ strategy at a higher quality when supported by instructional coaching over teachers who only attended the workshop

• Effect size of instructional coaching on quality implementation of new teaching practices was large

Co-teaching and Co-planning. According to Friend and Cook (2013), co-teaching is defined as two credentialed and/or licensed professionals—two teachers (e.g., general and special education teacher who may be highly qualified only in special education or in special education, as well as in the academic area); a teacher and a related services professional (e.g., a teacher and a speech/language therapist, or a teacher and an occupational therapist); or a teacher and another specialist (e.g., a teacher and a literacy coach, or a teacher and an ESL teacher—or para-professionals) and other adults who work in a classroom (e.g., community volunteers, practicum students) generally should provide support, not co-teaching (p. 163). Friend and Cook (2013) offer six approaches to co-teaching: Small group based approaches: 1. Station Teaching - The co-teachers divide the content to be delivered, and each takes

responsibility for part of it. The class is divided into groups. At one time, one group may work independently, but eventually, all groups participate in each station.

2. Parallel Teaching - The class is strategically divided into two groups. The co-teachers deliver the same content, although they may use different teaching methods to their half of the class.

3. Alternative Teaching - One co-teacher works with a small group of students to pre-teach, re-teach, supplement, or enrich content. The other teacher instructs the large group. The presentation methods vary based on the needs of the students.

Whole group based approaches: 4. Teaming - This approach is implemented in a whole group setting where both co-teachers share

the instruction of students. They cooperatively lead discussions or demonstrate concepts or learning strategies. This approach may also include modeling for such things as appropriate problem-solving.

5. One Teach-One Assist – This approach is usually implemented in a whole group setting where both co-teachers are present. One teacher, often the general educator, takes the lead while the other teacher drifts around the room assisting students as needed.

6. One Teach-One Observe - Typically, a whole group setting where both teachers are present. Most often, the general education teacher takes the lead and the special education teacher observes students while collecting data.

Since co-teaching can have many variables (e.g., teaching styles, teaching experience, personalities, different practices being implemented), the practice is often difficult to research. Fortunately, some researchers have been able to work through many of those variables to provide evidence that effective co-teaching can improve student outcomes on several levels: • All students in co-taught classes generally out-performed students in solo-taught classes on

unit tests and cumulative post-tests (McDuffie, Mastropieri, & Scruggs, 2009).

Page 33: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

33

• SWDs in co-taught classes significantly increased in achievement on standardized tests from the prior to co-teaching (Hang & Raben, 2009).

• SWD (Grades 3-8) improved in reading and math on statewide assessments over several years (Walsh, 2011).

• SWD in four California districts with strong collaborative practices accomplished unusually strong academic performance when compared to other school districts in that state (Huberman, Naro, & Parrish, 2012).

• SWD maintained higher academic engagement and on-task behaviors and both teachers were able to manage behaviors (Weichel, 2001).

• All students given more individual attention, on-tasks behaviors, and interaction with teachers (Murawski, 2006; Zigmond, Magiera, & Matta, 2003).

• SWD improved social skills, self-concept stronger peer relations were created (Bahamonde & Friend, 1999).

• SWD had more positive attitudes and interactions with typical peers were provided role models for behavior and learning…were exposed to higher level concepts (Murawski, 2006).

• Co-Teachers use more differentiated instructional groups, hands-on activities, and flexible assessments (Murawski, 2006; Murawski & Dieker, 2004).

• Much research has described the benefits of co-teaching, including opportunity for the different instructional strategies that can target the diverse needs of students in inclusive settings (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007).

• Small group approaches (i.e., Station; Parallel; Alternative) increase student-teacher interactions and provide more opportunities for students to respond (Bottge et al., 2015).

• Effect size was large for SWD when special educators more actively participated in instruction with general educators (Bottge et al., 2015).

Co-Planning involves two teachers (a co-teaching dyad) who will be teaching together using some of co-teaching approaches by Friend and Cook (2013) to decide what the content of the lesson will be and how they will provide instruction to meet the needs of all students in the classroom including academic and behavioral accommodations, as well as specially designed instruction. However, the lack of common planning time has been shown to be the most common concern among co-teaching dyads (Friend & Cook, 2013; Vannest & Hagen-Burke, 2010) and the biggest challenge for those teachers, as well as their administrators is the arranging that common planning time (Dieker & Murawski, 2003; Kilanowski-Press, Foote, & Rinaldo, 2010; Pearl, Dieker, & Kirkpatrick, 2012). If no common planning time is available, this will limit the effectiveness of the co-teaching experience (Dieker, 2008). Co-teachers need to schedule regular and consistent times to plan, commit to the planning process (at least a minimum of ten minutes per daily lesson to plan), avoid beginning the planning session with kid specific issues (e.g., the latest mischief), and focus on planning lessons for all students. Ploessl et al. (2009) indicated co-teachers may need visual prompts to consider how their roles and responsibilities should change throughout the lesson and has created co-planning forms to assist the co-teachers in doing such. These co-planning forms and the method for using them can be demonstrated in short PD sessions. Positive Behavioral Intervention Supports (PBIS): A Brief Overview. CHAMPS (Sprick, 2009) is a program designed and developed by Safe & Civil Schools (http://www.safeandcivilschools.com/services/classroom_management.php) to help teachers develop an effective classroom management plan that is proactive, positive, and instructional.

Page 34: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

34

The CHAMPS approach is based on the following principles or beliefs (STOIC): (a) Structure the classroom (b) Teach behavioral expectations (c) Observe and supervise (d) Interact positively (e) Correct fluently The SSIP Instructional Coaches, administrators, and teachers involved in the SSIP Demonstration Site Project all receive PD by trainers certified by Safe & Civil Schools. During PD sessions, participants learn how to establish a vision for their classrooms, organize classrooms for student success, prepare for the first month of school, specify classroom behavioral expectations, motivate even the most uncooperative students monitor and revise classroom behavioral plans, and correct specific misbehaviors. LEA Selection Criteria Selection criteria of LEAs participation as demonstration site:

• Readiness • Need and capacity converged • Statewide Assessment data identified possible sites in each region of the state as possible

LEAs for fit (i.e., reading proficiency)

Hexagon Tool. As part of the interview process, ALSDE staff facilitated use of the Hexagon tool during a site visit in order to explore the context of the identified school setting as eligible for inclusion in the SSIP demonstration site project. Interviews with administrators using the Hexagon tool for exploration and site fit and selection were based on:

• Need (academic issues, data indicating need, stakeholder perception of need) • Fit (school/district priorities with other initiates, organizational structures) • Resources (supports for curricula, technology, training, data systems, coaching, and

administration) • Evidence (outcomes, fidelity data, cost-effectiveness data, efficacy or effectiveness) • Readiness for Replication (qualified purveyor, expert available, etc.) • Capacity (staff meet minimum qualifications, sustainability, buy-in process operationalized): An SSIP Middle Schools Demonstration Site Project: An Overview manual (see Appendix

I) was developed and distributed to LEAs at the completion of the interview so that each LEA could determine fit within the project

The ALSDE considered the leadership embedded in the district and site Implementation Team

ALSDE personnel analyzed the above information for final selection of demonstration sites

Page 35: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

35

Readiness and Capacity for Implementation Cascade Model and Action Plan. A cascading logic model based on the work of NIRN was developed by an ALSDE consultant in order to illustrate the benefits of the project for students’ outcomes as the focus and included the following probing questions: • How will students benefit • How will teachers be supported • How will system and school Implementation Teams be supported • How will regional supports be developed • How does the state (SSIP team) support the demonstration site project Each Implementation Team was required to develop an Action Plan that documented efforts toward readiness for demonstration, to include specific documentation/product, actions, timelines, and person(s) responsible. An ALSDE consultant evaluated site readiness through the use of an observation tool based on the professional literature of Friend of Cook (2013) and Sprick (2009) and the NIRN Stages of Implementation Analysis: Where are We?, a tool for evaluating stages of implementation. Implementation Drivers. The implementation drivers needed to effect change in the LEA, school and personnel/provider practices include: Competency Drivers – Selection (site and personnel) and Coaching; Leadership Drivers – Leadership (site, district, and state) and Implementation Teams (site and district); and Organization Drivers – MOU process. PD support Training is provided by qualified providers to site staff, as well as state personnel and coaches, followed by ongoing coaching in (i.e., co-teaching and co-planning; PBIS). • Frequency of training (annually or biannually based on the needs of the site for co-teaching

and co-planning) (i.e., at one site, the Director of Special Education requested additional training related to collaboration based on a need for the teachers as they began to co-teach).

• Frequency of follow-up support by qualified providers based on individual site needs (i.e., SSIP Instructional Coach provided elbow coaching to a special educator who required added support to use a decision-making tool (Ploessl et al., 2010) to embed specially designed instruction into co-taught lessons).

• SSIP Instructional Coaches completed a fact-finding analysis to discover resources in place at sites (i.e., previous PD/training, technology infrastructure, leadership structure, current co-teaching practices, and current evidence of behavior management, current reading interventions/strategies, communication protocols, scheduling, and curricula).

• ALSDE consultants provide on-site support in the form of elbow coaching, scheduling, etc. as required by LEAs (i.e., consultant assisted Implementation Teams at individual sites in developing feasible weekly schedules that included co-taught classes and common co-planning time).

• SSIP Instructional Coaches are provided training/PD opportunities. • SSIP Instructional Coaches are provided additional training for instructional coaching based

on the work of Knight (2007).

Page 36: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

36

• SSIP Instructional Coaches meet monthly (led by consultants who provide support for identified knowledge and skills).

• SSIP Instructional Coaches are provided individual support by consultants on identified needs. • SSIP Instructional Coaches are provided PD on scheduling for effective co-planning and co-

teaching, as well as data analysis. LEA Scale-Up of EBPs The ALSDE, SES, has recruited and selected experienced SSIP Instructional Coaches to provide support to administrators and teachers at each site. Fiscal resources have been provided to enable sites to purchase evidence-based instructional programs. Linkages with general education programs (i.e., ARI; AMSTI) have been established. Professional development has been provided in multiple areas, including PBIS and co-teaching and co-planning. Moreover, district SSIP Implementation Teams developed budgets for expenditures that were approved by the ALSDE. The AL SPDG supports training for PBIS (i.e., CHAMPS; Foundations) for designated sites and SSIP Instructional Coaches. In addition, the AL SPDG provides the following supports: • Supports the development of transition demonstration sites in two SSIP demonstration sites,

with scaling up planning for successive years; • Provides onsite and virtual consultant support; • Provides approved technical assistance activities; • Requires documentation of functional SSIP Implementation Teams; and • Recognizes SSIP demonstration sites to support other LEAs throughout the regions.

ALSDE promotes SSIP demonstration sites through regional planning teams. ALSDE requires SSIP Implementation Teams to complete an Action Plan that includes, Specific documentation/product, Actions, Timelines, Person(s) responsible to promote sustainability and replication. Specific Activities Designed to Support Implementation of the Coherent Improvement Strategies (refer to Table 5) Communication Strategies to Implement the SSIP. In addition to the communication strategies listed in Table 4, the ALSDE with utilize the following strategies to implement the SSIP: • Monthly meetings (see Sample Agendas in Appendix II) with SSIP Instructional Coaches to

discuss progress, barriers, and new information including the individual site’s Action Plans (e.g., how co-teachers communicate co-teaching approaches to administrators and other stakeholders)

• Communication tools provided by NIRN adapted to fit individual site needs To ensure that essential communication is ongoing to all stakeholders, the SSIP demonstration site action plans are required to include a communication component. During the initial fact-finding process, SSIP Instructional Coaches are encouraged to implement the same or similar communication systems adopted by the site (i.e., at one site, all communication outside the team meetings is conducted via email messages copied to all SSIP Implementation Team members). SSIP Instructional Coaches are encouraged to take notes during the SSIP Implementation Team

Page 37: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

37

meetings and then distribute those notes to team members in order to ensure the Action Plan is followed. During the October 2015 Stakeholder Engagement Session, task force members in the Evaluation Design group were asked to consider the following questions: 1. How should the project communicate with stakeholders? 2. How can stakeholders be informed and provide input (e.g., develop communication plan)? 3. What are key evaluation questions the ALSDE should ask when evaluating the SSIP? 4. What short- and long-term outcomes should be measured? What types of data should be

collected? Of the questions listed, informing stakeholders and providing input through the development of a communication plan generated a hot topic of discussion and resulted in the addition of a strategy called Public Communication. Activities under Public Communication include, but are not limited to, presenting results and findings at regional and state conferences/meetings as well as debriefing the SEAP members and the public on the status of demonstration site implementation for their input. In response to developing a communication plan, with the support of the ALSDE, stakeholders offered levels of communication (low to medium and medium to high) based on the represented stakeholder perspectives below. Low to medium communication represents a level that are based on general activities and information. Medium to high communication represents a level that includes targeted and site specific information of concern to multi-level practitioners. • Low to Medium Level Communication – Parents, students, politicians, state agencies (e.g.,

ADRS, offices within the ALSDE), community representatives (e.g., SSIP demonstration sites, PTIs, parent and advocacy groups), and statewide Parent Teacher Association (PTA)/Parent Teacher Organization (PTO) leaders

• Medium to High Level Communication – School/district-level administrators (e.g., Superintendents, Special Education Coordinators, Principals), IHEs (specifically personnel preparation programs), and the SEAP

Stakeholders suggested and the ALSDE has considered the use communication mechanisms such as online surveys, webinars, infographics, focus groups, regional meetings, and social media to communicate with stakeholders. Other suggestions included the development of an SSIP Web site with various levels of access, online modules, and the inclusion of a parent representative on each SSIP district-level team. In addition to the communication mechanisms proposed by stakeholders and the Public Communication strategy and activities, the ALSDE will host and facilitate monthly meetings with SSIP Instructional Coaches to discuss progress, barriers, and new information relevant to the demonstration sites. Stakeholder Involvement and Their Decision-Making Roles. Stakeholder involvement regarding implementation is sought to first identify areas for improvement and then to determine

Page 38: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

38

strategies to improve areas of need. As strategies are implemented, stakeholders are informed concerning formative data resulting from implementation efforts. ALSDE requires SSIP Implementation Teams to complete an Action Plan through shared decision-making that includes: • Specific documentation/product, Actions, Timelines, Person(s) responsible to promote

sustainability and replication • SSIP Implementation Teams support the implementation, sustainability, capacity building, and

scale-up of each EBP of the project • SSIP Implementation Teams are encouraged to engage their communities (e.g., parent

invitations to view the innovative practices in place in the schools, parent involvement in surveys)

Addressing Barriers from Phase I. In Phase I, the ALSDE recognized the need to close the gap and prepare all students for post-school success. It was proposed that the SSIP would work with ALSDE partners, the PTI Center, IHEs, LEAs, and other partners to ensure that educators teaching in the general education classroom, as well as special educators, are receiving high quality PD and coaching to meet the needs of all students. As a result of this proposal and expressed need, stakeholders identified several barriers, to include the following: Personnel Issues: • High turnover of special education teachers and administrators • Lack of ownership for special education

o Addressed by ensuring that the special education director and special education, teacher are active members of the SSIP Implementation Team and using formative assessments to illustrate progress for SWD.

• Lack of personnel to share responsibility for increasing [improving] student achievement for

all students • Inadequate time allotted for PD

o Addressed by providing state funds for high quality PD, which includes follow-up support through coaching and technical assistance and substitute reimbursement.

Culture and Climate Issues: • Lack of buy-in from all stakeholders

o Addressed through Implementation Teams gathering of formative assessment data to inform stakeholders, to solicit “buy-in”, and to ensure stakeholders that students are achieving the intended outcomes.

• Failed communication or misinterpretation

o Addressed by ensuring that SSIP Instructional Coaches are members of both the district and building level teams and they provide a direct communication link to each team and the ALSDE.

Page 39: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

39

• Multiple, interfering initiatives, causing teachers to feel overwhelmed:

o Addressed by using the Hexagon Tool during the interview process for exploring implementation. Potential sites are asked to consider other initiatives and how they may or may not interfere, overlap, or conflict with the EBPs of this project. Also, SSIP Instructional Coaches provide follow-up support in order to support teachers and to facilitate understanding of the connectivity between initiatives (e.g., the Literacy Design Collaborative is easily implemented in a co-taught classroom; the implementation of Safe & Civil School practices provides a positive classroom climate for the implementation of co-teaching).

PD Issues: • Lack of clearly-defined roles

o Addressed by providing co-planning tools to assist teachers and coaches with defining roles

and responsibilities for co-taught lessons. Use of the co-planning tool will be required in order to ensure that co-teachers have documented roles and responsibilities in co-taught lessons. Additionally, action plans developed by the SSIP Implementation Teams assign roles and responsibilities to individuals or teams to ensure progress toward the project goals.

• Lack of follow-up after PD (“one shot” trainings)

o Addressed through embedding instructional coaching to ensure that EBPs are implemented

as intended within the LEAs.

• Teachers lack of knowledge on addressing student deficits

o Addressed through the project by providing numerous opportunities for teachers to increase knowledge and skills through effective job embedded PD with support from knowledgeable coaches and trainers (i.e., co-teachers are coached while planning for co-teaching in order to ensure that specially designed instruction is embedded in their lessons).

Training of Local and District Implementation Teams. In the beginning of the Exploration phase, ALSDE staff meet with the site and district Implementation Team to discuss the MOU that sets forth the implementation science parameters and expectations for the work, including training participation and implementation. The SSIP Instructional Coach for each SSIP demonstration site works with the site, district, and state Implementation Teams to ensure that all personnel/providers receive training to implement the evidence-based practices with fidelity. The trainers used must be the approved, credentialed presenters and use tools provided by the SSIP State Implementation Team (e.g., Safe & Civil Schools, co-teaching and co-planning, secondary transition, and ARI and AMSTI). Follow-up coaching (onsite, as well as e-Coaching) is provided to ensure that all evidence-based practices are implemented with fidelity.

Page 40: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

40

Ongoing communication strategies among offices (e.g., Improving the Graduation Rate meetings) will ensure that staff from all offices communicate regularly regarding the actions and linkages regarding EBP implementation in the SSIP demonstration sites and plan regarding timelines and activities. RPTs, CCRS, focus school regional staff, ADRS, CTE staff will work together around secondary transition and employment.

Page 41: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

41

Component #3: Evaluation Will the evaluation be handled internally or externally, and are sufficient resources identified to conduct it? The ALSDE, SES, has formed an Evaluation Team to oversee the project evaluation activities. The Evaluation Team is comprised of SES staff, site Instructional Coaches, site staff (including site Implementation Team), consultants, and stakeholders. More detail about the Evaluation Team members can be found in Table 8. A subset of the Evaluation Team, the Evaluation Core Team, includes state team liaisons, an SSIP coach, and an external evaluator. The Evaluation Core Team conducts the evaluation, data collection, data analyses, as well as addresses the day-to-day issues and questions pertaining to the SSIP evaluation. The ALSDE, SES Program Coordinator reviewed the SES staffing capacity. In order to maximize the Department’s resources for project management, the provision of technical assistance, and delivery of infrastructure activities, the Program Coordinator opted to subcontract with an external evaluator, Dr. Jocelyn Cooledge, to oversee the SSIP evaluation. Dr. Cooledge is also the external evaluator on the SPDG. The external evaluator functions as the Evaluation Project Manager on the Evaluation Team. The ALSDE, SES, recognizes the need to appropriately staff and fund project data collection and evaluation activities: • Each of the SSIP demonstration sites have received over $150,000 of funding since spring

2015. As outlined in their contracts and MOUs, sites are required to provide data as outlined in the SSIP evaluation plan and collect any required data.

• For external contractors, the SES sets an expectation for data collection and participation in evaluation activities. The SSIP Instructional Coaches and consultants (Dr. Pam Howard, Dr. Jocelyn Cooledge, Safe & Civil Schools staff) collect district- and building-level data for the project.

• Additionally, the ALSDE has dedicated approximately $60,000/year for external evaluation activities. This budget covers the development of the evaluation plan and logic model, the identification and development of assessments, the external evaluation of the activities in the 10 SSIP demonstration sites, the evaluation of the infrastructure activities, and formative and summative data analyses and reporting

What are the identified measureable inputs (resources), outputs (strategies and activities), and short and long term outcomes? The AL SSIP measurable inputs, outputs, and short- and long-term outcomes are defined in the AL SSIP Logic Model (see Appendix III). The ALSDE, SES, has two versions of the logic model: 1) A single-page, public view of the model in a traditional logic model format; and 2) A more comprehensive, working logic model for the ALSDE staff, SSIP demonstration sites, and consultants.

Page 42: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

42

The single-page logic model overview can be found in Table 6 below. Activities are grouped by student (blue), teacher (green), and systems (red) activities. The distinction of the three levels allows stakeholders to identify the activities and expected outcomes for each group. The work of all three levels of implementation will lead to shared long-term outcomes.

Page 43: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

43

Table 6. AL SSIP Logic Model Overview

Inputs Activities Outputs Short-Term Outcomes

Intermediate Outcomes

Long-Term Outcomes

• ED inputs: Indicator 17 guidance; TA; monitoring; federal funding

• AL established data targets

• ALSDE, SES staff expertise

• Funding & experience from SPDG project

• ARI & AMSTI instructional support

• Prevention & Support

• State 2020 Plan • ALSDE monitoring • Research on

implementation science, co-teaching, SCS

• Jim Knight’s Big Four and instructional coaching

• Existing state and community partnerships

• APEC support and training

• Content consultants • Experienced coaches • Stakeholder and

parent engagement and support

* Implement high-quality and engaging instruction for all students in gen. ed. classrooms in demonstration sites * Create a safe & civil learning environment * Provide comprehensive transition activities and supports in demo sites

* 10-12 demo sites are formed and prepared to model practices * At least 3 transition demo sites are created * SWD have access to individualized, high-quality instruction in co-taught classrooms * Students learn in a safe & civil environment * SWD receive Transitions curriculum in class & are engaged in CBVI

* Increased ACT Aspire & progress monitoring scores at demo sites * Decreased achievement gap between SWD and SWOD * Inc. % SWD proficient * 85%+ stud. engagement * Increased SCS Student Survey safety scores * Dec. in ODRs/ISS/OSS * Dec. tardy & absences * Students earn credit for Transition class * Increased community work placements * HS SWD attend and are involved in IEP meetings

* Regional schools show increased Aspire and progress monitoring data * Regional schools decrease SWD vs. SWOD achievement gap * Dec. in ODRs/ISS/OSS in regional schools * Students satisfied with learning environment * Dec. in drop-out rates in SSIP schools *Inc. grad rates for SWD in SSIP schools * Inc. SWD enrolled in post-secondary schools in SSIP schools * Increased SWD competitively employed in SSIP schools

* Dec. in Indicator 2 (drop-out rates) Inc. in Indicator 1 (graduation) * Inc. Indicator 14a (SWD enrolled in post-secondary schools) * Increased Indicator 14b (SWD competitively employed) * Increased % Indicator 8 (parent involvement) * Coordination among transition partners for transition activities * Districts scale-up SSIP activities to elem. & HS * Districts can sustain the SSIP activities * District/school policies support SSIP practices

* Teachers and administrators in demo sites have training, coaching, and resources to support SWD in gen. ed. classroom * Teachers have PD and resources to provide transition supports * Develop a collaboration & partnership between general and special education teachers

* Teachers at demo sites trained/coached on co-teaching, co-planning, SCS, instruction, and transition practices * Increased collaboration among general and special education teachers

* Educators have SSIP content knowledge * Teachers show fidelity * Inc. behavior management on STOIC * Teacher and admin. satisfaction with SSIP

* Inc. teacher fidelity at regional schools * Increased general and special education teacher collaboration beyond co-teaching

* Create a system & culture for supporting SWD and teachers in demonstration sites * Foster a collaborative & communicative culture within the district & community * Coordinate with transition groups to develop a state transition collaborative * Implement a continuous improvement process * Engage parents & stakeholders in training, info. sharing, and program feedback for program improvement

* Implementation Teams established, barriers to implementation identified, policies reviewed, resource needs identified * Community partnerships are aligned for transition supports * State transition groups hold coordinated meetings * Parent, school, and community feedback * Project evaluation data reviewed

* Schedules, policies, finances support SSIP * Increased parent knowledge about co-teaching, SCS, transition * Inc. comm. partnerships * Inc. comm. among transition partners * Teachers & admins visit regional demo sites and adapt practices for own districts

* Demo schools provide PD & TA to districts within region * Increased % of parent involvement in SSIP & regional schools * Inc. collaboration among transition partners * Inc. number of districts adopting SSIP activities * District/school policies support SSIP practices

Assumptions: Commitment of partners; Practices lead to anticipated evidenced-based improvements; Demonstration sites continue to implement practices; District, building, community buy-in; Demonstration sites are representative of region; Post-School Outcomes Survey has high response rate; Coordination among transition community partners; Transition partners have buy-in for collaboration; Districts scale-up SSIP activities with fidelity; Districts have resources to implement and sustain activities; District/school policies support SSIP practices; Data are tracked.

Page 44: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

44

What are the links between the evaluation and the theory of action and other components of the SSIP? For example, has the State formulated evaluation questions that test its theory of action (e.g. A question for each activity that asks, “To what extent did [an activity] produce a change in [an outcome]”) as well as questions to gauge progress in implementation of coherent improvement strategies (e.g., To what extent were milestones in implementation [# of sites, # of implementers trained to criterion, proficiency on fidelity measures, # of coaches employed] reached on schedule)? The relationship among the theory of action, strategy, and outcomes are outlined in the Theory of Action Tables (Appendix IV). Moreover, the link between the strategies and the evaluation questions can be found in the AL SSIP Outcomes Evaluation Questions and Performance Indicators table in Appendix V. If different stakeholders were recruited for Phase II’s evaluation, how were they recruited and what organizations or groups do they represent? For Phase II, the ALSDE, SES, used four primary stakeholder groups in the development of the SSIP evaluation (see Figure 6): SSIP Stakeholder Evaluation Subgroup; Alabama SEAP; Transition Parent Focus Groups; and SSIP Instructional Coaches. These groups include a broad spectrum of expertise and constituencies, including consumers, families of SWDs, educators, state partners, and statewide organizations. Each area of the state is represented by these stakeholder groups used for the development of the SSIP evaluation. These groups will continue to provide their expertise on the SSIP and evaluation throughout the implementation and scaling-up of the initiative. Figure 6. The Stakeholder Inputs for the Development of the AL SSIP Evaluation Plan

AL SSIP Evaluation

Development

SSIP Stakeholder: Evaluation Subgroup

SEAP

Focus Group Parents

SSIP Site Instructional

Coaches

SSIP Evaluation

Team

Page 45: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

45

SSIP Stakeholder Evaluation Subgroup Table 7 shows the AL SSIP Stakeholder group members who participated on the Evaluation Subgroup. These members were selected from the SSIP Stakeholder group based on their expertise in data and evaluation, and/or their knowledge about data for a particular stakeholder group. Table 7. Alabama SSIP Stakeholder Group: Evaluation Subgroup Members Member Stakeholder Group Role

Nancy Anderson ADAP, Alabama Protection & Advocacy Director Lorraine Barnes Parent Center Representative Sharon Blythe-Lovelady AL SSIP Instructional Coach for Transition Sites Gail Comins ALSDE, SES Representative Jocelyn Cooledge Evaluation Project Manager, Group Facilitator Lisa Olenik Dorman Huntingdon College, IHE Representative Linda Felton-Smith Director of ALSDE-Office of Learning Support Kemeche Green ALSDE-SES, SSIP/SES Data Team Member Alicia Hodge ALSDE, SES Representative Laurie Hutchison Corrections/Teacher, JF Ingram State Technical College Karen Jenkins Transition Representative Wanda Langley ALSDE-Prevention and Support Representative Marilyn Lewis ALSDE-Prevention and Support Representative Mitchell Lord Community/Business Representative Temeyra McElrath LEA Special Education Director, SSIP Site LaDonna Rudolph ALSDE-Federal Programs & Parent Representative Tina Sanders ALSDE-SES, Behavior Specialist Graham Sisson Transition Representative Colley Wells Career and Technical Education Representative Byron White Vocational Rehabilitation Services Representative

Alabama Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP) The ALSDE, SES worked with the Alabama SEAP to inform the members and to gather feedback on the evaluation plan and logic model. The Alabama SEAP members hold a three-year term and are selected by the Panel to represent SWDs and their families throughout the state. A list of the AL SEAP members can be found in Table 8.

Page 46: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

46

Table 8. 2015-2016 Alabama SEAP Members Member SEAP Role

Jennie Autrey Community/Business Representative, Parent Tara Baker Paraprofessional, Autauga County Amy Blakeney Part C Representative Lori Skidmore Parent of a child with a disability Marc Williams Learning Tree, Inc. Gwendolyn Baker LEA Special Education Administrator, Anniston City Barbara English LEA Special Education Administrator, Baldwin Co. Pamela Fossett Alabama Education Association Broderick Leonard Parent of a child with a disability Todd Tomerlin Parent of a child with a disability Jeana Winter Director of the Alabama Parent Education Center (APEC) Lorraine Barnes APEC Representative Lisa Olenik Dorman Huntingdon College, IHE Representative Laurie Hutchison Corrections/Teacher, JF Ingram State Technical College Karen Jenkins Transition Representative Mitchell Lord Community/Business Representative Temeyra McElrath LEA Special Education Administrator, Elmore County LaDonna Rudolph Federal Programs, Parent of a child with a disability Graham Sisson Transition Representative Byron White Vocational Rehabilitation Services Mitchell Anderson Former Student Kent Crenshaw Adult Services and Transition Provider Tristan Dunn Former Student Jerimie Goike Former Student Melanie Holbert Parent of a child with a disability Joe Johnson IHE Representative Betsy King Alabama Department of Rehabilitative Services Barney Smart Parent of a child with a disability Byron White Alabama Department of Mental Health Zach Woolley Former Student

Page 47: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

47

Parent Focus Groups As part of the Alabama SPDG, the SES, and the AL PTI Center have convened three longitudinal parent focus groups for the past three years. The focus groups generate data and feedback from parents of transition-aged students in the three major regions of Alabama (south, central, and north). The same parents participate each year, providing longitudinal perspectives on the transition process of their children. In 2015, the SES staff and the SPDG/SSIP external evaluator presented the SSIP information to the focus group and gathered ideas from the parents. To protect the anonymity of the parents, no names are shared with the SES staff during the focus groups, and limited demographic information is available. SSIP Instructional Coaches The ALSDE, SES, also gathered evaluation feedback from the SSIP Instructional Coaches. The 11 coaches are retired Alabama educators who work part-time with an assigned SSIP demonstration site. The coaches bring a variety of educational experiences and former roles, such as serving as principals, local special education directors, district superintendents, transition coordinators, and ALSDE staff. All of the coaches have classroom teaching experience. Table 9 lists the SSIP Instructional Coaches and their SSIP demonstration sites. Table 9. AL SSIP Instructional and Secondary Transition Coaches and Site Assignments Member SSIP Assignment

Pam Adams Monroeville Middle School, Monroe County Vickie Brown Greensboro Middle School, Hale County Fannie Adams Coppinville Middle School, Enterprise City

Rebecca Hardiman Coppinville Middle School, Enterprise City & Andalusia Junior High, Andalusia City

Gayle Jones Nichols-Lawson Middle School, Sylacauga City Sharon Blythe-Lovelady Elmore County Transition Melissa Nannini Wetumpka Middle School, Elmore County Debbie Patterson White Plains Middle School, Calhoun County Marti Rizzuto Athens Middle School, Athens City Elizabeth Stockdale Rutledge School, Midfield City TBD Secondary Transition Coaches TBD Secondary Transition Coaches

Page 48: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

48

How might the stakeholders participate in creating the evaluation questions to be asked and in judging the acceptability of the strategies used and outcomes achieved? Several groups of stakeholders, as outlined above, have had the opportunity to provide input into the development of the SSIP evaluation: • During the AL SSIP Stakeholder meeting held in October 2015, the external evaluator

presented emerging data showing the efficacy of the AL SSIP model in one of the SSIP demonstration sites. Members of the SSIP Stakeholder group provided input and asked questions about the model and data.

• The AL SSIP Stakeholder meeting had break-out sessions for three subgroups: Evaluation, Infrastructure, and LEA Implementation. The Evaluation subgroup participants 1) generated a stakeholder communication list; 2) identified modes of communication for various stakeholder groups; 3) drafted evaluation questions that should be posed; and 4) identified key outcomes and performance measures to track. This information was used to develop the logic model, evaluation plan, evaluation questions, and stakeholder communication plan.

• In December 2015, the ALSDE, SES, the Alabama PTI Center, and the external evaluator conducted three Transition Parent Focus Groups in the three major regions of the state. The SSIP Lead presented an overview of the SSIP purpose, the model, and the major activities. The parents generated lists of outcomes they thought should be included in the plan, as well as key evaluation questions. Ideas from the parents were used in the development of the evaluation plan and evaluation questions.

• In January 2016, the AL SEAP was asked to review the draft logic model and to provide ideas for increasing community and family engagement outcomes. The external evaluator also presented preliminary data to the group. SEAP members offered ideas for the logic model, and as a result, the logic model was modified based on their feedback.

• Every month in the 2015-2016 school year, the SSIP Instructional Coaches meet with ALSDE, SES staff and Dr. Pam Howard (co-teaching consultant) to discuss SSIP progress. These day-long meetings have provided time for reflecting on the implementation of the AL SSIP model and purposeful planning for eliminating barriers. Input from the SSIP Instructional Coaches throughout the past year has helped to define all aspects of the SSIP evaluation.

The ALSDE, SES, will continue to seek input from these stakeholder groups through face-to-face meetings, WebEx meetings, e-mail, and shared reporting. The Evaluation Team will also gather feedback from parents and community members at the SSIP demonstration sites, which will be used for making any needed modifications to the evaluation plan. In addition, the ALSDE, SES, will share the plan with other stakeholder groups over the next few months, as outlined in the communication plan below. How will stakeholders continue to be informed and provided opportunities to weigh in on the ongoing implementation of the evaluation? The ALSDE will use a transactional model of communication that will allow bi-directional sharing and feedback. This model takes into account the expertise and experiences of both the SSIP staff and stakeholders. Due to resources and time, the evaluation management tasks will occur first with

Page 49: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

49

the Evaluation Core Team, followed by the Evaluation Team, spiraling to larger stakeholder groups. This process will allow for rapid corrections in activities. Members of the Evaluation Core Team communicate frequently, often weekly, regarding the data. Formally, the Evaluation Core Team will meet monthly via conference calls so that all parties can share progress and gather information. The Team will walk through the SSIP Activity Log data and the 30-60-90 Day Checklist to determine progress during these calls. Reviewing these data will allow the Evaluation Core Team to act on any concerns in a short timeframe. The Evaluator will present a biannual report for the Evaluation Team and the SSIP Stakeholder Group. These meetings will ensure that the SSIP staff and stakeholders can make informed decisions about possible changes to the implementation of the activities and provide information to inform the story behind the data. Summative data will be reported annually in July, which will allow the External Evaluator to incorporate the school results into the summative results. Members of the Evaluation and SSIP Stakeholder Groups will be responsible for communicating data and receiving feedback from assigned constituency groups. During the October 2015 SSIP Stakeholder Meeting, the Evaluation Subgroup identified a list of stakeholders and the level of information they would need to be informed: low-level of information, medium-level, or high-level (see Figure 7). The three levels indicate the amount of information the stakeholder group would typically need. For example, community colleges in the state would receive a low-level of information, but Special Education Coordinators would receive a medium- to high-level of information. A list of the stakeholder groups and their level of communication is listed in Component #2. Figure 7. Frequency and Type of Communication with SSIP Stakeholders

Monthly

•Evaluation Team: Partner Meeting Minutes; Activity Log Summary; 30-60-90 Status Updates; SSIP Coaches' Meetings

•Medium-Level: E-mail updates•Low-Level: E-mail updates or web post

Quarterly

•Evaluation Team: Scope of project update; Review of data; Discussion of barriers•Medium-Level: Newsletter•Low-Level: Newsletter link

Biannually

•Evaluation Team: Student data; Teacher fidelity data; Implementation data; Discussion of barriers; 30-60-90 Status Review; SSIP Stakeholder Meeting

•Medium-Level: Annual Report; Public attendance at SSIP Stakeholder Meeting and SEAP Meeting

•Low-Level: Summary of Annual Report; Stakeholder Survey

Page 50: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

50

The high, medium, and low status does not reflect the opportunity for feedback and input. As seen in Figure 7, the ALSDE, SES, will solicit input from all stakeholder groups through e-mails and meetings, as well as through stakeholder representation on the SSIP Stakeholder Group. The Evaluation Team will continue to refine the list of stakeholders and assignments for data sharing and input. Information about the frequency of communication and data sharing can be found in the AL SSIP Evaluation Plan. How does the evaluation measure State infrastructure changes needed to better align current initiatives identified in the infrastructure analysis conducted in Phase I? The changes to the state infrastructure are represented in all seven of the AL SSIP strategies. Table 10 illustrates the infrastructure changes outlined in Component #1 and the corresponding SSIP coherent improvement strategies. The details for the evaluation of the improvement strategies can be found in the AL SSIP Evaluation Plan (Appendix VI). Table 10. AL SSIP Infrastructure Changes and Corresponding Improvement Strategies

SSIP Improvement Strategies

Infrastructure Change

1 Co-teaching

2 PBIS

3 Implement. Science

4 Transition Sites

5 Transition Coord.

6 Project Manage.

7 Parent/ Stakeholder Collab.

Fiscal: Hire coaches for SSIP demonstration sites

X X X X

Training/TA: 12 Regional Staff to provide training and TA to LEAs

X X X X X

Interagency: Place job coaches in LEAs X X

Interagency: Coordinating SITT X

Monitoring: Shift in ALSDE, SES role to partnership with LEAs

X

Page 51: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

51

What are the criteria for successful implementation based on the measure(s) established (e.g., the level of proficiency on a fidelity measure)? For each outcome, the ALSDE, SES, has established performance measures that will be tracked throughout the initiative. The AL SSIP Outcomes by Evaluation Questions and Performance Indicators table, found in Appendix V, shows the relationship of the performance measures with the strategies, outcomes, and evaluation questions. The performance measure targets were established by: 1. Reviewing extant data (e.g., the state’s SPP/APR indicator data); 2. Analyzing the AL SPDG data to inform growth modeling (e.g., student progress monitoring

data); 3. Reviewing current SSIP data, as available; 4. Researching best practices and expected levels (e.g., Safe & Civil Schools research); and 5. Examining the appropriateness based on the amount of funding and time available. Inputs from the Transition Parent Focus Group and Stakeholder Evaluation Subgroup were also taken into consideration when establishing targets and rates. The performance measure targets were discussed by the Evaluation Core Team, however the targets will be presented to the Evaluation Team and other stakeholders over the next three months. Any modifications will be made prior to the beginning of the 2016-2017 school year in August 2016. All SSIP demonstration sites will receive copies of the performance measures and targets during summer 2016. While the AL SSIP demonstration sites are at different rates of implementation, the performance measures and targets will help to establish goals for progress. What is the State’s system for collecting implementation data and data applicable to the SIMR that yields valid and reliable data collected at regular intervals? The AL SSIP Evaluation Plan, found in Appendix VI, outlines the data collection schedule for SSIP data. The assessment tools and protocols (AL SSIP Forms, Surveys, and Tools) used for data collection can also be found in Appendix VII. The frequency of data collection was determined by the need for data as well as the feasibility and burden of the schedule for the ALSDE, SES, and SSIP demonstration sites. Through its work on the SPDG, the SES, has already established the data collection process for many of the performance measures, which has allowed the state to beta-test the assessments, process, and reporting. If the State’s evaluation process is based upon a sample of the target children with disabilities then, how does the State ensure that the sample is representative of all of the children exposed to the coherent improvement strategies? The ALSDE will examine both a sample of SWDs at the SSIP demonstration sites, as well as the population of SWDs in the state. As seen in the AL SSIP Logic Model, the SSIP is intended to

Page 52: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

52

affect students, teachers, administrators, and families at the 11 SSIP demonstration sites during the first two to three years of implementation. The ALSDE, SES Evaluation Team, is collecting data on these demonstration sites in order to determine efficacy of the intervention and for sharing/marketing to other schools around the state. The data collection and evaluation activities will continue at the SSIP demonstration sites for the duration of the plan. For the selection of the co-teaching/behavior SSIP demonstration sites, the ALSDE used the following criteria: Table 11. AL SSIP Selection Criteria for SSIP Demonstration Sites Selection Criteria for SSIP Demonstration Sites

1. School-Level: Schools with Grades 7 and 8 2. Geographic location: Representation from one of the 11 regions in Alabama; Mix of rural

and urban districts 3. Focus school or priority school status: Low academic achievement performance and/or

large achievement gap between SWDs and SWODs 4. Likelihood for success: Assessment using the State Implementation and Scaling-Up of

Evidence-based Practices (SISEP) Hexagon Tool and meetings with district and school leaders to assess buy-in

5. Parent participation: Inclusion of a parent leader on the site’s Implementation Team 6. Varied school demographics: School size; School resources 7. Varied student demographic characteristics: Percentage of students qualifying for Free

and Reduced Lunch; Student ethnicity As outlined in Component #2, two new sites will be added during the 2016-2017 school year to ensure all of regions are represented. The same selection criteria will apply for these new sites. Additionally, for the 2017-2018, the ALSDE, SES, will offer funding to selection of districts wanting to adapt the SSIP model. The SES funding will be allocated through a grant application process, and the selection of the new sites will follow the selection criteria outlined above. Other than the focus/priority school status, the SSIP demonstration sites for the 2015-2016 school year are representative of SWDs in Alabama. The inclusion of the focus/priority school status allows the ALSDE, SES, to assist these high-need sites, as well as test the model in more challenging settings. Table 12 demonstrates the characteristics of the 10 SSIP co-teaching/behavior sites to illustrate their representativeness of SWDs in Alabama. Alabama’s Coherent Improvement Strategies 1-4 focus on implementation at the SSIP demonstration sites. The demonstration sites are intended to serve as exemplars for schools within the region, and therefore Alabama expects other schools to adapt the SSIP model in time. The evaluation will focus on the scaling-up to other sites and the effect on state-level data beginning in 2019. For Coherent Improvement Strategies 5-7 (transition infrastructure, project implementation, and working with stakeholders, respectively), the focus is on state-level implementation. As a result, the data collection will examine state-level indicators, as outlined in the AL SSIP Evaluation Plan.

Page 53: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

53

Table 12. Demographic Characteristics of the AL SSIP Demonstration Sites (2015-2016)

School Student Pop. % Black

% White, Non-Hispanic

% Free/ Reduced Lunch

Urban vs. Rural1

AL Region

% SWD Proficient Reading

% SWD Proficient Math

Math Prof. Gap SWODs- SWDs

Reading Prof. Gap SWODs-SWDs

State of Alabama 165,864 32.53% 57.04% 51.98% 59% urban N/A 7.38% 9.26% 32.38% 35.14%

Andalusia Jr. High School 257 30.86% 64.84% 52.14% Rural 11 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Athens Middle School 607 19.37% 57.62% 54.86% Urban 2 9.04% 11.32% 36.04% 37.43%

Brooks Junior High School 241 <5% 94.20% 36.22% Urban 1 15.38% 7.69% 40.31% 49.49%

Coppinville Middle School 436 25.46% 57.34% 48.17% Rural 11 8.11% 10.81% 39.50% 41.89%

Greensboro Middle School 256 95.31% <5% 85.55% Urban 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Monroeville Middle School 437 80.32% <10% 73.91% Rural 10 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Nichols-Lawson Middle School 496 36.09% 60.69% 55.24% Rural 7 15.38% 15.38% 22.20% 18.18%

Rutledge School 367 97.82% <2% 66.49% Urban 5 1.93% 0% 8.49% 18.60%

Wetumpka Middle School 956 30.65% 61.92% 52.93% Urban 9 4.86% 6.05% 33.18% 43.05%

White Plains Middle School 460 <10% 88.26% 41.74% Urban 6 5.88% 23.52% 46.30% 60.16%

1 Urban and rural determination was made by examining the county rating from the Alabama Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Page 54: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

54

What comparison(s) will be made to demonstrate the effectiveness of the coherent improvement strategies? For example, did student results change over time (e.g. pre-post) or did results change when compared to other groups of students? The AL SSIP evaluation for Coherent Improvement Strategies 1-4 (student-based outcomes), utilizes a between and within subjects, repeated-measures design. Figure 8 depicts the cyclical data collection for each SSIP demonstration site annually. More details of the data collection process can be found in the AL SSIP Evaluation Plan (Appendix VI). Figure 8. Repeated-Measures Design for AL SSIP School-Based Strategies

As Figure 8 shows, each student in a co-taught classroom serves as his/her own control. The students’ ACT Aspire data for the prior year is compared to the score after a year in the co-taught classroom. Additionally, each school collects progress monitoring data, and while the schedules differ among districts, all SSIP districts collect progress monitoring data at the beginning of the school year, in December or January, and again in April or May. The data for each student is compared longitudinally, in order to calculate gain scores throughout a year. Teachers complete a pre- and post-assessment for PD on co-teaching and co-planning training and a retrospective pre- and post-assessment for CHAMPS and Foundations training. The Evaluation Team is creating revised post-assessment for the co-teaching and co-planning, which will be completed before summer 2016. In addition to the pre- and post-assessments, the teachers are observed for fidelity twice a year (fall and spring) for co-teaching and CHAMPS implementation. Lastly, the students’ longitudinal progress monitoring and ACT Aspire scores for each class is analyzed and reviewed. When selecting SSIP demonstration sites, the ALSDE, SES staff and co-teaching consultants conducted assessments using the SISEP Hexagon Tool. Implementation is measured twice annually for each site using the Level of Implementation Checklist. In addition, the Safe & Civil

StudentsFall Progress MonitoringSpring ACT

Aspire

Winter Progress Monitoring

Spring Progress Monitoring

Spring ACT Aspire

TeachersPD Pre/Post Assessment,

CHAMPS, Fall Class Progress

Monitoring

Fall Fidelity Check, CHAMPS, Winter

Progress Monitoring

Spring Fidelity Check, CHAMPS,

Spring Progress Monitoring

SchoolsHexagon Tool Assessment,

Foundations, ACT Aspire

Fall Levels of Implementation,

Foundations, ACT Aspire

Spring Levels of Implementation,

Foundations, ACT Aspire

Page 55: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

55

Schools Foundations implementation is measured at least twice a year, in November and March, using the Foundations Implementation Rubric. Using the same data collection schedule, the student ACT Aspire and progress monitoring data are reported by school. The strategies for school-based transition activities are measured both throughout a year and annually, as shown in Figure 9. As with the co-teaching and behavior SSIP site activities, the three transition demonstration sites measure the implementation and efficacy of transition activities for students, teachers, and schools. Figure 9. Repeated-Measures Design for AL SSIP Secondary Transition Strategies

As seen in Figure 9, student, teacher, and school outcomes are collected in the fall and spring. The SWDs who participate in the Transition class, will complete a Transition Concepts Student Survey (see Appendix VIII) in both the fall and spring semesters. This assessment measures IEP knowledge and self-advocacy. The participation in their IEP will also be measured on an annual basis. On an annual basis, CBVI participation and graduation rates will also be collected and reviewed. These measures will track individual-level outcomes for those students participating in the Transitions classes for a repeated-measures design. Both teacher and school-level data will also be measured annually. Teachers receive training on secondary transition and their fidelity of implementation is assessed twice a year. For the transition demonstration sites, IEP participation, CBVI participation, and graduation rates are measured each spring. In addition to the within-subjects, repeated-measures design, the AL SSIP also compares the performance of students and schools in SSIP demonstration sites to the performance of other groups. Progress monitoring and ACT Aspire scores for SWDs in the co-taught classrooms are compared to students without disabilities (SWODs) in the same co-taught classroom. The performance of SSIP schools on ACT Aspire, CBVI participation, and graduation rates are also compared with non-SSIP scores, either the performance to another school within the district,

StudentsFall Transition Survey, Prior-

Spring IEP Participation

Spring Transition Survey, Spring

IEP Participation

Annual IEPParticipation,

CBVI Participation, Graduation

Teachers PD Post Assessment, Fall Fidelity Check

Spring Fidelity Check

Annual Fidelity Check

SchoolsPrior Spring IEP

Participation, CBVI

Participation, Graduation Rate

Spring IEP Participation,

CBVI Participation,

Graduation Rate

Annual IEP Participation,

CBVI Participation,

Graduation Rate

Page 56: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

56

and/or to all other districts in Alabama. Also, when available, the progress monitoring data will be compared for co-taught classes and non-co-taught classes in the same school. These data are not available in all schools since it requires participation by other teachers; however, the data will be collected and reported when available. AL SSIP Coherent Improvement Strategies 5-7, collaboration on transition infrastructure, project implementation and management, and parent and stakeholder involvement, are primarily assessed through the completion of activities. For Coherent Improvement Strategies 5 and 7 (transition infrastructure and stakeholder involvement, respectively), the ALSDE, SES, will measure collaboration longitudinally. The ALSDE, SES, will use a collaboration assessment administered biannually as well as the AL Stakeholder Collaboration Survey administered annually (see Appendix IX). Details for the evaluation of these strategies can be found in the AL SSIP Evaluation Plan. How often is the data reviewed? Who is participating in the review? How are changes made to the implementation and improvement strategies as a result of the data reviews? There are three levels of data review: 1) The SSIP Evaluation Core Team; 2) The SSIP Evaluation Team; and 3) The Stakeholder Meeting reviews. Currently, the members of the Evaluation Core Team have frequent, usually weekly, informal conversations and meetings about emerging data, findings, and evaluation planning. Since the SSIP is closely aligned with the AL SPDG activities, the relationships among the Evaluation Core Team members have been established. The group is accustomed to working together toward program improvement. The Evaluation Core Team is comprised of the members and their associated roles in Table 13. Table 13. SSIP Evaluation Core Team Members and Roles Member SSIP Evaluation Core Team Role Crystal Richardson SES Program Coordinator Susan Williamson SSIP Lead, SES Liaison Eric Dickson Part B Data Manager, SSIP Data Analyst Kemeche Green SSIP/SES Data Team Member Theresa Farmer Co-Teaching and Safe & Civil Schools PD Coordinator Curtis Gage Transition PD Coordinator Rebecca Hardiman SSIP Coach Representative Parent--TBD Parent of a transition-aged student Jocelyn Cooledge Evaluation Project Manager, External Evaluator

The schedule for data reviews can be found in the SSIP Evaluation Plan. While certain data, as outlined in the SSIP Evaluation Plan, are shared monthly, the Evaluation Team will review all of the available evaluation data formally twice a year (summer and winter).

Page 57: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

57

Table 14. SSIP Evaluation Team Members and Roles Member SSIP Evaluation Team Role Crystal Richardson SES Program Coordinator Susan Williamson SSIP Lead, SES Administrator, SPDG Director Eric Dickson Part B Data Manager, SSIP Data Analyst Kemeche Green SSIP/SES Data Team Member Theresa Farmer Co-Teaching and Safe & Civil Schools Coordinator Curtis Gage Transition Coordinator SSIP Coaches for SSIP regional sites (10)

SSIP Coach

SSIP Coaches for SSIP transition sites (3)

SSIP Coach

Jocelyn Cooledge Evaluation Project Manager, External Evaluator Pam Howard Co-Teaching/Co-Planning Consultant Sonja Hines Andalusia City Special Education Director Jeana Winter AL PTI Center Director Wanda Young Special Education Teacher, Elmore County Tina Sanders Behavior Consultant

Evaluation data will also be shared biannually with the AL SSIP Stakeholders. Evaluation reports will be disseminated twice a year to the group, and the AL SSIP stakeholders will meet twice a year, once in-person in October and once through WebEx in June. Feedback from the group will be used to interpret the results and determine if additional analyses are needed. How does the State evaluate the effectiveness of the TA and/or PD? If the TA and/or PD are determined to be ineffective, what is the process for making adjustments? To evaluate the effectiveness of PD and coaching, the ALSDE, SES, implements the following strategies: 1. Appoint SES staff within the ALSDE to serve as SSIP PD Coordinator and to oversee PD and

coaching. 2. Ensure trainers have the necessary expertise and training. 3. Confirm training is based on adult learning principles. 4. Assess PD. 5. Assess learning by PD and coaching participants.

Page 58: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

58

SSIP PD Coordinators The ALSDE, SES, has two SSIP PD Coordinators, Ms. Theresa Farmer (co-teaching and co-planning and Safe & Civil Schools activities) and Mr. Curtis Gage (secondary transition), who oversee the PD and technical assistance related to the content areas. Ms. Farmer’s and Mr. Gage’s training oversight duties include: 1. Working with external training consultants to develop a scope and sequence of training. 2. Meeting with the district Implementation Teams to ascertain the readiness for implementation,

the requisite knowledge and experience of teachers prior to training, and the resources in place to support the sustainability of the training.

3. Overseeing the implementation of the contracts of the training consultants. 4. Attending training activities to ensure all PD is high-quality and research-based. 5. Coordinating training activities with district staff, building staff, and AL SSIP Coaches. 6. Reviewing training evaluation data with the AL SSIP Evaluator. 7. Reviewing the training evaluation data with the training consultants. Trainer Qualifications The ALSDE entered into contracts with the three trainers based on their prior expertise. The selection of the trainers was through a request for application (RFA) process, which included a review of the trainers’ credentials. Dr. Howard has over 20 years of co-teaching experience, was the Director of a Georgia Regional Education Lab, and has extensive training and research experience on co-teaching. Dr. Ploessl has over ten years of co-teaching experience, trains and supervises pre-service and graduate students, and has been published numerous times on the topic of online coaching and co-planning. Ms. Hamilton has been a Safe & Civil Schools trainer for over 12 years and worked as a Behavior Consultant for the Kentucky Department of Education prior to her role as a trainer. In addition to their experience, the AL SSIP trainers received cross-training on the following topics: • Implementation Science • Four days of Instructional Coaching by Ann Hoffman at KU-CRL • Evaluation and data entry systems from the AL SSIP External Evaluator • Safe & Civil Schools/CHAMPS (for D. Ploessl and P. Howard) The ALSDE, SES PD Coordinators will continue to oversee the qualifications and expertise of any future PD providers. Adult Learning Principles The AL SSIP training consultants implement PD following the Dunst and Trivette principles of adult learning (2009). Consultants Pam Howard and Donna Ploessl collaborate on their co-teaching and co-planning training curricula and aligned their training with the Dunst and Trivette principles. Consultant Laura Hamilton uses the Safe & Civil Schools training curriculum, modified to meet the individual needs of the districts.

Page 59: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

59

The AL SSIP External Evaluator has reviewed the training materials and resources to determine how they aligned with the Dunst and Trivette PALS model (2009). The following strategies were incorporated into the training: Introduction, Illustration, Practice, Evaluation and Reflection. Assessing Professional Development The High Quality Professional Development Checklist will be used by the PD Coordinators or the External Evaluator to measure the quality of the training. If one of the domains is less than 80 percent, the results are shared with the PD provider to discuss strategies for modifying the training curriculum. The PD Coordinators will also continue to observe over 70 percent of the training events to ensure quality of the training and adherence to evidenced-based practices. Assessing Learning Training participant knowledge is measured and used in three ways: • First, participants complete a Pre-Event Evaluation assessment form. The specific measures

varied depending on the topic (e.g., co-teaching, Safe & Civil Schools Foundations). Following the training, participants are asked the same questions and their results are scored to measure learning. The Pre- and Post-Event Evaluations are through SurveyGizmo and the links are sent to participants before and after the training. If scores are below 80 percent for any item, the results are discussed with the PD Coordinators and the PD providers.

• Second, the co-teaching and co-planning, CHAMPS, and secondary transition teachers are measured using observation sheets (Co-Planning Look-Fors and Co-Teaching Observation Checklist, Transitions Curriculum Checklist). These tools are collected and scored by the AL SSIP Instructional Coaches. The Coaches meet with the teachers during coaching to review the results and to develop goals.

• Third, fidelity data are collected in the fall and spring semesters. The results are shared in aggregate form with the district Implementation Teams, trainers, and AL SSIP Coaches.

The ALSDE, SES, has experience in reviewing and using its training and fidelity data. For example, during one on-site fidelity check for the state’s SPDG project, the results showed low fidelity in the classroom culture/parity, co-planning, and implementation of the models of co-teaching. The results were used to develop a new training in the site that reviewed the co-teaching content and strategies for co-planning. The training was attended by both the current co-teaching dyads as well as those teachers who would be co-teaching in the following year. The ALSDE, SES, will continue to use these same steps for AL SSIP training.

Page 60: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

60

What is the process the State will use to make modifications to the SSIP as necessary? Following the Policy Enables Practices – Practice Informs Policy (PEP-PIP) cycle (see Figure 10), the ALSDE recognizes the importance of seeking continuous feedback in order to make programmatic and policy changes based on data. The feedback activities included in every objective allows for evaluation data to be formally reviewed by the SSIP Evaluation Team. Through this evaluation review, the results will be used to generate ideas for improvements, suggesting alternative ways to examine the data, and discuss necessary programmatic or policy changes that may be warranted. When the AL SSIP demonstration sites begin scaling-up, the implementation of the PEP-PIP improvement cycle will become more critical. Figure 10. Policy and Practice Feedback Loops for Modifying Implementation

(SISEP, 2016) Members of the Evaluation Team will remain informed about practices at the SSIP demonstration sites (Coherent Improvement Strategies 1-4) and the collaboration/infrastructure activities (Coherent Improvement Strategies 5-7). The improvement cycle will be a continuous process as data are reviewed by the Evaluation Core Team on a monthly basis. Additionally, the SSIP Evaluation Team will conduct a formal review of any recommendations for new policies and new policies that may affect practices on a biannual basis. Any changes to the practices or policies will be communicated to the appropriate stakeholders and/or PD recipients. Based on feedback from the practices, new policies may be created. For example, the Transition Parent Focus Groups provided data about the limitations of the graduation pathways for SWDs.

Page 61: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

61

These data, in conjunction with other input, led to a policy change in the graduation pathways. Following the policy change, the Transition Specialist presented the change at the next annual Transition Parent Focus Group in order to inform the parents about the change.

Page 62: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

62

List of Tables and Figures

Tables

Table 1 List of SSIP Demonstration Sites 5

Table 2 SPP/APR Targets for Part B Indicator 14b 12

Table 3 Coherent Improvement Strategies and Activities 13

Table 4 Infrastructure Changes, Resources Needed, Expected Long-Term Outcomes, and Timelines 18

Table 5 Implementation of EBPs – Coherent Improvement Strategies 22

Table 6 AL SSIP Logic Model Overview 43

Table 7 Alabama SSIP Stakeholder Group: Evaluation Subgroup Members 45

Table 8 2015-2016 Alabama SEAP Members 46

Table 9 AL SSIP Instructional and Secondary Transition Coaches and Site Assignments 47

Table 10 AL SSIP Infrastructure Changes and Corresponding Improvement Strategies 50

Table 11 AL SSIP Selection Criteria for SSIP Demonstration Sites 52

Table 12 Demographic Characteristics of the AL SSIP Demonstration Sites (2015-2016) 53

Table 13 SSIP Evaluation Core Team Members and Roles 56

Table 14 SSIP Evaluation Team Members and Roles 57

Figures

Figure 1 The Alabama SSIP Model 3

Figure 2 Map of SSIP Regional Demonstration Sites 4

Figure 3 Illustration of Greensboro Middle School’s data room 6

Figure 4 Illustration of Greensboro Middle School’s Reading Café 9

Figure 5 Alabama’s Plan 2020 – Learners Objectives 17

Figure 6 The Stakeholder Inputs for the Development of the AL SSIP Evaluation Plan 44

Figure 7 Frequency and Type of Communication with SSIP Stakeholders 49

Page 63: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

63

Figure 8 Repeated-Measures Design for AL SSIP School-Based Strategies 54

Figure 9 Repeated-Measures Design for AL SSIP Secondary Transition Strategies 55

Figure 10 Policy and Practice Feedback Loops for Modifying Implementation 60

Page 64: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

64

References Bahamonde, C., & Friend, M. (1999). Teaching English language learners: A proposal for

effective service delivery through collaboration and co-teaching. Journal of Educational

and Psychological Consultation, 10(1), 1-24.

Bottge, B. A., Toland, M. D., Gassaway, L., Butler, M., Choo, S., Griffen, A. K., & Ma, X.

(2015). Impact of enhanced anchored instruction in inclusive math classrooms. Exceptional

Children, 81, 158-175.

Brown, C.J., Stroh, H.R., Fouts, J.T., & Baker, D.B. (February, 2005). Learning to

change: School coaching for systemic reform. Fouts & Associates. Retrieved on

March 15, 2016, from http://spu.edu/orgs/research/Learning%20to%20Change%204-5-

05.pdf

Cornett, J., & Knight, J. (2009). Research on coaching. In J. Knight (Ed.), Coaching:

Approaches and Perspectives (pp. 192-216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Dieker, L., & Murawski, W. (2003). Co-teaching at the secondary level: Unique issues, current

trends, and suggestions for success. High School Journal, 86(4), 1-13.

Dunst, C. J., & Trivette, C. M. (2009). Let’s be PALS: An evidence-based approach to

professional development. Infants & Young Children, 22 (3), 164-176.

Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005).

Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South

Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation

Research Network.

Fixsen, D.L. & Blasé, K.A. (2008). Drivers framework. Chapel Hill, NC: The National

Page 65: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

65

Implementation Research Network, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute,

University of North Carolina.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2013). Interactions: Collaboration for school professionals (7th ed.).

Boston, MA: Pearson.

Hang, Q., & Raben, K. (2009). An examination of co-teaching: Perspectives and efficacy

indicators. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 250-268.

Huberman, M., Navo, M., & Parrish, T. (2012). Effective practices in high performing districts

serving students in special education. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 25(2),

59-71.

Knight, J. (2007). Instructional Coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Knight, J. (2014). What Coaches Do: Participant Workbook. Lawrence, KS: Instructional

Coaching Group.

McDuffie, K., Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (2009). Promoting success in content area

classes: Is value added through co-teaching? Exceptional Children, 75, 493-510.

Murawski, W. W. (2006). Student outcomes in co-taught English classes. How can we improve?

Reading and Writing Quarterly, 22, 227-247.

Murawski, W. & Dieker, L. (2004). Tips on Strategies for Co-Teaching at the Secondary Level.

TEACHING Exceptional Children, 36(5), 52-58.

Ploessl, D., Rock, M., Schoenfeld, N., & Blanks, B. (2010). On the same page: Practical

techniques to enhance co-teaching interactions. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(3),

158-168.

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms:

Page 66: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

66

A meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 75, 392-416.

Sprick, R. (2009). Doing discipline differently. Principal Leadership, 9 (5), 18-22.

Vannest, K. J., & Hagen-Burke, S. (2010). Teacher time use in special education. Remedial and

Special Education, 31, 126-142.

Walsh, J. M. (2011). Co-teaching as a school system strategy for continuous improvement.

Preventing School Failure, 56(1), 29-36.

Weichel, W. A. (2001). An analysis of student outcomes on co-taught settings in comparison to

other special education service delivery options for students with learning disabilities.

Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(7).

Zigmond, N., Magiera, K., & Matta, K. (2003). Co-teaching in secondary schools: Is the

instructional experience enhanced for students with disabilities? Paper presented at the

annual conference of the Council for Exceptional Children, Seattle, WA.

Page 67: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

67

Appendices

Appendix I: AL SSIP Middle Schools Demonstration Site Project: An Overview

Appendix II: Sample Agendas

Appendix III: AL SSIP Logic Model

Appendix IV: Theory of Action Tables

Appendix V: AL Outcomes by Evaluation Questions and Performance Indicators

Appendix VI: AL SSIP Evaluation Plan

Appendix VII: AL SSIP Forms, Surveys and Tools

Appendix VIII: Transition Concepts Student Survey

Appendix IX: AL Stakeholder Collaboration Survey

Page 68: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Appendix I

AL SSIP Middle Schools Demonstration Sites Project: An Overview

Page 69: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

1 | P a g e

AL State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)

Middle Schools Demonstration Site Project:

An Overview

Created September 2015

Page 70: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

2 | P a g e

Table of Contents

Overview: State Systemic Improvement Plan Demonstration Site Project--Braiding ALSDE

Initiatives to Improve Results for Students with Disabilities………………………………………………3

Implementation Science: A brief overview………………………………………………………………

Instructional Coaching: A brief overview…………………………………………………………………

Co-Teaching and Co-Planning: A brief overview………………………………………………………

Positive Behavioral Classroom Management: A brief overview of CHAMPS ……………

Example Letter to Selected School Systems……………………………………………………………………..

Example SSIP Demonstration Site Project Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) …….……

Cascading Logic Model and Action Plan: SSIP Demonstration Site Project………………………..

Appendices

Appendix A: SSIP Demonstration Site Project Instructional Coaches Table (as of May 2015)……

Appendix B: Protocol Questions for Grant Purchases………………………………………………………………

Appendix C: Interview Protocol for Collaborators……………………………………………………………….……

Appendix D: Acronyms……………………………………………………………..

References……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Page 71: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

3 | P a g e

Overview

State Systemic Improvement Plan Demonstration Site Project--

Braiding Alabama State Department of Education Initiatives to Improve Results for Students

with Disabilities

Description of Need: The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Services (SES), has collected and analyzed performance data for students with Individualized

Educational Programs (IEP) over the past several years. Analysis of this trend data indicate that

about 85% of students with disabilities (SWD) are placed in general education environments for

more than 80% of the school day [Annual Performance Report (APR) FFY 2012], yet proficiency

data for SWD have remained relatively static within the 40% range for the last few years. The

trajectory from 2008-09 (40.00%) to 2012-13 (48.67%) showed slightly positive gains in reading

for the aggregate of grades 3-8 and one high school grade (i.e., 9th). The current overall

performance for students with IEPs in reading and mathematics were reported in the FFY 2012

APR at 48.67% and 47.25% proficient, respectively [Source: Alabama Reading and Math Test

(ARMT), SY 2012-2013.]

Although the gains in achievement are encouraging, the current growth trajectory remains too

flat to achieve the aggressive growth needed to close the gap in achievement and graduation

rates within the foreseeable future. When these data are further analyzed by grade level, it

becomes apparent that the middle school grades in both reading and math proficiency

experience substantial drops in proficiency beginning in the sixth grade, although the

performance reported for Grade 8 reading (37.24%) for FFY 2012 is higher than the

mathematics performance of 37.08% proficient. Given that these students are predominantly

educated within the general education classrooms, it appears that they may not be receiving

appropriate supports through supplementary aids and services from special education teachers

and general education personnel to support and improve their proficiency. The low

achievement at the middle school levels are particularly troubling, given it is in these grades that

many students, especially those with IEPs, make the decision to leave school without a diploma.

These decisions negatively impact graduation rates for the state, may diminish the students’

potential post-school outcomes, and greatly increase the chances that the students will live in

poverty and/or experience other negative social risks, such as incarceration.

Proposal for Action: In order to provide effective, evidence-based technical assistance

consistent with the body of knowledge and research related to the Implementation Science

Framework [Fixsen & Blase, 2005; National Implementation Research Network (NIRN)

http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/ ], the SES section of the ALSDE proposes to implement an ongoing

initiative that utilizes the existing state infrastructure of eleven regional in-service centers and

Page 72: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

4 | P a g e

the Regional Planning Teams (RPTs), as specified in the design requirement of the State

Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) as part of the FFY 2013-18 State Performance Plan/Annual

Performance Report (APR). The structure of the SSIP, as proposed by the ALSDE, braids the SSIP

components with the existing initiatives of the State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG), and

the approved application of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility

Waiver, which reflects Alabama’s Plan 2020.

This initiative is designed to provide one on-site Instructional Coach to work in each region

(with two for Region 11), or a total of twelve Instructional Coaches, to provide evidence-based

professional development (PD) on collaborative school environments, co-teaching, and co-

planning to special and general education teachers and staff in assigned middle schools within

the region. In addition, follow-up coaching will be provided with specific emphasis on

improvement in literacy/reading instruction. The Instructional Coaches for the demonstration

sites will also attend each RPT and other regional meetings. Moreover, the Instructional

Coaches will work with other state initiatives, such as the Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI), as

appropriate, to provide information/resources on evidence-based practices that improve

reading instruction for middle school students.

Each assigned Instructional Coach will participate in training on evidenced-based practices such

as implementation science (Fixen et al., 2005), instructional coaching (Knight, 2007), co-

teaching (Friend & Cook, 2013), co-planning (Ploessl et al., 2010) and positive behavioral

management (Sprick, 2009) by attending training offered by the SPDG through its Project

Closing the Gap (CTG): Goal 2. Following the first year of implementation, each demonstration

site will offer visitation opportunities to other school systems within the region, thereby

expanding the scope of the project over the next few years.

Criteria for Instructional Coaches: Applicants for the position of Instructional Coaches for the

SSIP must possess classroom and administrative experience with expertise in working with

administrators and teachers at the middle school level. Applicants are to be retired personnel

who have been employed in Alabama school systems.

Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Demonstration Site Project Model: The

graphic representative (see below) illustrates the variables that comprise the SSIP or Creating

Effective Inclusive Environments (CEIE) demonstration project:

Page 73: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

5 | P a g e

Sites and Coaching Status: Beginning December 2014, middle school demonstration sites in

several in-service regions were identified and selected and Instructional Coaches were

employed. The Instructional Coaches received training on implementation science (Fixen et al.,

2005), instructional coaching (Knight, 2007), co-teaching (Friend & Cook, 2013), co-planning

(Ploessl et al., 2010) and positive behavioral management (Sprick, 2009) to prepare them for

their ongoing duties for (a) working with administrators and coaching teachers in the

demonstration sites on the implementation of evidence-based practices, and (b) using

formative assessment data to inform student progress. During the Spring of 2015, the

Instructional Coaches began working with the school site’s Implementation Teams and the ARI

District coaches for the establishment and roll-out of the demonstration sites customized to

address the needs for each specific school. Full implementation of the demonstration sites is

slated to begin in Fall 2015 and visits to be encouraged during Spring 2016. Ongoing

identification efforts are being continued in other regions to ensure appropriate selection of

sites to ensure future sites have concurrent academic needs, as well as administrative support

for transformational change.

Page 74: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

6 | P a g e

Example Letter to Selected School Systems:

To: Selected Special Education Coordinators

From: Crystal Richardson, Program Coordinator, Special Education Services (SES)

Re: Participation in the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Demonstration Site Project

Alabama is developing a network of Middle School Demonstration Sites pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 1416(b)(1)(C) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requirement that each state must submit a new Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) that includes a new Indicator 17, the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) that is part of OSEP’s Results-Driven Accountability (RDA) Framework. The SSIP must identify coherent improvement strategies to improve outcomes for students with disabilities and this identification must be based upon a detailed data analysis. The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education Services, has collected and analyzed performance data for students with IEPs over the past several years. The results of this analysis indicate that the identified improvement area for Alabama’s SSIP is the subject area of reading, specifically at the middle school level.

We are pleased to inform you that Middle School in your LEA has been selected to participate as the SSIP Demonstration Site for Region . The remainder of SY 2014-2015 will be used for training and preparation for full implementation of this project beginning with SY 2015-2016. Please mark your calendars now for to attend the first training event for the SSIP Demonstration Sites. There is no cost for this training and all attendees will be reimbursed travel expense according to state rules and regulations. Payment for substitutes for teachers attending the SSIP Demonstration Site training will be reimbursed to LEAs after submission and processing of appropriate documentation.

This training will be held in Montgomery at the Alabama Public Library System (APLS), located at 6030 Monticello Court, in the Tallapoosa Room. Each Demonstration Site is being allocated space for one special education coordinator and six school team members to include up to two administrators from the school site, at least two participating general and special education teachers, and any other relevant team members, as designated by the LEA. A registration link will be sent to you during mid-January in order to register all attendees for the sessions. (a) (Collaboration, Co-teaching/Co-planning) School Team Planning with Instructional Coach for remainder of year; planning for full implementation in SY 2015-2016; and (b) CHAMPS Training (Provided by Safe and Civil Schools Certified Trainer).

We are looking forward to seeing you and your team members at our initial training session! Should you have additional questions, please contact Susan Williamson at [email protected] or by telephone at (334) 242-8114.

Page 75: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

7 | P a g e

As stated above, each assigned Instructional Coach will participate in training on

Implementation Science (Fixen et al., 2005), Instructional Coaching (Knight, 2007), co-teaching

and co-planning (Friend & Cook, 2013; Ploessl et al., 2010), and positive behavioral

management (Sprick, 2009). Brief descriptions can be found below.

Implementation Science: A brief overview

The National Implementation Research Network (NIRN) [Fixen et al., 2005; National

Implementation Research Network (NIRN) http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/ ], analyzed over 30 years of

empirical literature on the implementation of innovations and interventions in education,

business, and other fields. A framework for effective implementation was identified, as well as

developmental stages of implementation. Implementation was defined as:

A specified set of activities designed to put into practice an activity or program of known

dimensions.…implementation processes are purposeful and are described in sufficient

detail such that independent observers can detect the presence and strength of the

‘‘specific set of activities’’ (Fixen et al. , 2005, p. 5).

The network [Fixen et al., 2005; National Implementation Research Network (NIRN)

http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/ ] recognized that the science of intervention related to developing

evidence-based practices had improved through the use of manuals that clarified interventions,

and fidelity measures. A conceptual framework was created to guide effective organizational

implementation of a specified intervention model while asserting that effective implementation

requires careful consideration of (a) core intervention components, (b) core implementation

components, and (c) stages of implementation. (See below).

Core Intervention components:

(1) clear definition of the model,

(2) characteristics of the target population and how the chosen model addresses them,

(3) alternative models for addressing that population and why those alternatives were

not selected,

(4) theory base of the chosen model, and

(5) chosen model’s theory of change.

Core Implementation components:

(1) organizational context and readiness,

(2) facilitative administration (structures and practice),

(3) systems level interventions to support direct service,

(4) model fidelity assessment in direct service and within the organization,

(5) staff selection and training,

Page 76: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

8 | P a g e

(6) staff coaching and supervision, and

(7) selection of purveyors who provide consultation and training that supports these

drivers of program implementation.

Stages of Implementation:

The network [Fixen et al., 2005; National Implementation Research Network (NIRN)

http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/ ] suggested the implementation of an intervention model is not an

event, but a two to four year process. Stages and drivers are not linear or separate; each is

embedded in the other in interesting combinations. Outcomes are processed throughout the

implementation stages:

(1) Exploration Stage,

(2) Installation Stage,

(3) Initial Implementation Stage, and

(4) Full Implementation Stage.

Instructional Coaching: A brief overview

The Kansas Coaching Project’s Center for Research on Learning (Instructional Coaching Group)

(http://instructionalcoach.org/about/about-coaching ) defined Instructional Coaches (IC) as

“on-site professional developers who teach educators how to use proven instructional

methods. To be successful in this role, coaches must be skilled in a variety of roles, including

public relations guru, communicator extraordinaire, master organizer and, of course, expert

educator” (n.d.). The tasks of the instructional coaches include:

Marketing their services: Instructional coaches hold brief meetings with

[implementation] teams or teachers to explain goals, interventions/practices, and the

support they can provide. They allow time for questions and provide a means for

teachers to indicate they are interested in working with the coach.

Analyzing needs of teachers: Instructional coaches meet with teachers at convenient

times to identify the most pressing needs and to discuss possible evidenced-based

interventions that might help address those needs.

Observing classes: Instructional coaches observe classes being taught by the

collaborating teachers to note the overall progress.

Collaborating on interventions: Together, instructional coaches and teachers identify the

most pressing needs. When necessary, instructional coaches and teachers collaborate to

develop an [action] plan for implementing the chosen instructional method.

Modeling: As teachers observe, instructional coaches may demonstrate how the new

intervention should be implemented. In some cases, instructional coaches provide

Page 77: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

9 | P a g e

checklists or some other form of observation tool so teachers know to watch for specific

teaching behaviors.

Providing a loop of feedback-modeling-observing-feedback: The nature of the

instructional coaching process allows for continuous communication. After the

observations, instructional coaches meet with teachers to discuss how the teachers

implemented the intervention. Coaches provide validation along with suggestions for

improvement. The communication may continue with the instructional coach modeling,

observing, and providing more feedback depending on the needs of the teacher.

Building networks for change: Instructional coaches work with groups to establish

[implementation] teams or professional learning communities that may pave the way

for interventions to be implemented consistently.

Instructional coaching is about improving instruction by understanding the complexity of

helping adults, embracing partnership principles, and using a coaching cycle (Knight, 2014).

Cornett and Knight (2009) indicated

teachers were more likely to implement a new intervention/strategy when supported

by an instructional coach after attending an afterschool workshop compared to only

attending an after-school workshop;

teachers used the new intervention/strategy at a higher quality when supported by

instructional coaching as opposed to only attending the workshop;

teachers self-selected to implement a new intervention/ strategy at a higher quality

when supported by instructional coaching over teachers who only attended the

workshop; and

effect size of instructional coaching on quality implementation of new teaching

practices was large.

Co-teaching and Co-planning: A brief overview

Friend and Cook (2013, p. 163) defined co-teaching as “two credentialed/licensed

professionals— two teachers (e.g., GE and SE teacher who may be highly qualified only in

special education or in special education, as well as in the academic area); a teacher and a

related services professional (e.g., a teacher and a speech/language therapist, or a teacher and

an occupational therapist); or a teacher and another specialist (e.g., a teacher and a literacy

coach, or a teacher and an ESL teacher)…para-professionals and other adults who work in a

classroom (e.g., community volunteers, practicum students) generally should provide support,

not co-teaching.” Friend and Cook (2013) suggested six approaches to co-teaching:

Page 78: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

10 | P a g e

Small group based approaches:

Station Teaching: The co-teachers divide the content to be delivered, and each takes

responsibility for part of it. The class is divided into groups. At one time, one group may

work independently, but eventually, all groups participate in each station.

Parallel Teaching: The class is purposively divided into two groups. The co-teachers

deliver the same content, albeit it may be using a different teaching method, to half of

the class.

Alternative Teaching: One co-teacher works with a small group of students to pre-teach,

re-teach, supplement, or enrich content. The other teacher instructs the large group.

The presentation methods vary based on the needs of the students.

Whole group based approaches:

Teaming: This is implemented in a whole group setting where both co-teachers share the

instruction of students. They may take turns leading a discussion or demonstrating

concepts or learning strategies. This approach may also include modeling for such things

as appropriate questioning or conflict resolution.

One Teach-One Assist: This is usually implemented in a whole group setting where both

co-teachers are present. One teacher, often the general educator, takes the lead while

the other teacher drifts around the room assisting students as needed.

One Teach-One Observe: Typically, a whole group setting where both teachers are

present. Most often, the general education teacher takes the lead and the special

education teacher observes students while collecting data.

Since co-teaching can have many variables (e.g., teaching styles, teaching experience,

personalities, different practices being implemented), the practice is often difficult to research.

Fortunately, some researchers have been able to work through many of those variables to

provide evidence that effective co-teaching can improve student outcomes on several levels:

All students in co-taught classes generally outperformed students in solo-taught classes on unit tests and cumulative post-tests (McDuffie, Mastropieri, & Scruggs, 2009).

Students with disabilities (SWD) in co-taught classes significantly increased in achievement on standardized tests from the prior to co-teaching (Hang & Raben, 2009).

SWD (grades 3-8) improved in reading and math on statewide assessments over several years (Walsh, 2011).

SWD in four California districts with strong collaborative practices accomplished unusually strong academic performance when compared to other school districts in that state (Huberman, Naro, & Parrish, 2012).

SWD maintained higher academic engagement and on-task behaviors and both teachers were able to manage behaviors (Weichel, 2001).

Page 79: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

11 | P a g e

All students…more individual attention, on-tasks behaviors, and interaction with teachers (Murawski, 2006; Zigmond, Magiera, & Matta, 2003).

SWD improved social skills, self-concept… stronger peer relations were created (Bahamonde & Friend, 1999).

SWD had more positive attitudes and interactions with typical peers…were provided role models for behavior and learning…were exposed to higher level concepts (Murawski, 2006).

Co-Teachers use more differentiated instructional groups, hands-on activities, and flexible assessments (Murawski, 2006; Murawski & Dieker, 2004).

Much research has described the benefits of co-teaching, including opportunity for the

different instructional strategies that can target the diverse needs of students in

inclusive settings (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007).

Co-planning involves two teachers (a co-teaching dyad) who will be teaching together using

some of co-teaching approaches by Friend and Cook (2013) to decide what the content of the

lesson will be and how they will provide instruction to meet the needs of all students in the

classroom including academic and behavioral accommodations, as well as specially designed

instruction. However, the lack of common planning time has been shown to be the most

common concern among co-teaching dyads (Friend & Cook, 2013; Vannest & Hagen-Burke,

2010) and the biggest challenge for those teachers, as well as their administrators is the

arranging that common planning time (Dieker & Murawski, 2003; Kilanowski-Press, Foote, &

Rinaldo, 2010; Pearl, Dieker, & Kirkpatrick, 2012).

If no common planning time is available, this will limit the effectiveness of the co-teaching

experience (Dieker, 2008). Co-teachers need to schedule regular and consistent times to plan,

commit to the planning process (at least a minimum of 10 minutes per daily lesson to plan),

avoid beginning the planning session with kid specific issues (e.g., the latest mischief), and focus

on planning lessons for all students. Ploessl et al. (2012) indicated co-teachers may need visual

prompts to consider how their roles and responsibilities should change throughout the lesson

and has created co-planning forms to assist the co-teachers in doing such. These co-planning

forms and the method for using them can be demonstrated in short professional development

sessions.

Positive Behavioral Intervention Supports (PBIS): A brief overview

CHAMPS (Sprick, 2009) is a program designed and developed by Safe & Civil Schools

(http://www.safeandcivilschools.com/services/classroom_management.php ) to help teachers

develop an effective classroom management plan that is proactive, positive, and instructional.

The CHAMPS approach is based on the following principles or beliefs (STOIC):

(a) Structure the classroom,

Page 80: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

12 | P a g e

(b) Teach behavioral expectations,

(c) Observe and supervise,

(d) Interact positively, and

(e) Correct fluently.

The instructional coaches, administrators, and teachers involved in the SSIP Demonstration Site

Project all receive professional development by trainers certified by Safe & Civil Schools. During

professional development sessions, participants learn how to:

• establish a vision for their classrooms, • organize classrooms for student success, • prepare for the first month of school, • specify classroom behavioral expectations, • motivate even the most uncooperative students, • monitor and revise classroom behavioral plans, and • correct specific misbehaviors.

Page 81: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

13 | P a g e

Example of SSIP Demonstration Site Project Memorandum of Understanding (MOU):

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Alabama State Department of Education

Special Education Services Special Education State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Demonstration Site Project

School System

School System Contacts:

1. Signature*:

2.

Date: Title:

Signature*:

Superintendent

3.

Date: Title:

Signature*:

Special Education Coordinator

4.

Date: Title:

Signature*:

Middle School Principal

5.

Date: Title:

Signature*:

Special Education Teacher

Date:

Title:

General Education Teacher *A signature indicates: School System commitment to support and implement SSIP Demonstration Project goals and activities described within this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

ALSDE Contact:

Theresa Farmer

SSIP Instructional Coach:

Date:

Page 82: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

14 | P a g e

SSIP Project Introduction The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education Services (SES), State Systemic Improvement Plan, is an ongoing project that utilizes the existing state infrastructure of eleven regional in-service centers and the Regional Planning Teams (RPTs), as specified in the design requirement of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) as part of the FFY 2013-18 State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (APR). The structure of the SSIP, as proposed by the ALSDE, braids the SSIP components with the existing initiatives of the State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG), and the approved application of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility Waiver, which reflects Alabama’s Plan 2020.

Middle School is the selected SSIP Demonstration Site for Region _. The remainder of school year (SY) will be used for training and preparation for full implementation of this project beginning the second semester of SY . The ALSDE assigns SSIP Instructional Coaches to each site. Currently, is the SSIP Instructional Coach assigned to provide support to Region and Middle School.

Purpose and Scope This Memorandum of understanding (MOU) will identify roles and responsibilities related to the ALSDE SES SSIP Demonstration Site Project and School System. The overall project period for the project is in accordance with the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). The time period specific to this MOU is (date) to (date). Any changes in personnel will be included as a partner during the duration of this MOU.

Duration of Understanding The terms of understanding identify the roles and relationship of the renegotiation terms on an annual basis. For this agreement, the project year is (date) through (date).

The ALSDE SES agrees to:

Establish an ALSDE SES SSIP Implementation Team to collaborate with School System to support a Region SSIP Demonstration Site at Middle School. The SES SSIP Demonstration Site Implementation Team will include: - Crystal Richardson, ALSDE SES Coordinator - Susan Williamson, ALSDE SES Administrator - Theresa Farmer, ALSDE SES Education Specialist - , ALSDE SES Education Specialist - , ALSDE SES Education Specialist - , Instructional Coach for Region

Provide funding to assist District and Building level Implementation Teams with establishing a SSIP Demonstration Site at Middle School, as approved by the SES Coordinator.

Provide funding for ALSDE SES support personnel which includes, but is not limited to: - _, Instructional Coach for Region , - SES Region Support Staff, - ALSDE SES/SPDG Staff, and - ALSDE SPDG Consultant

Provide funding to support training and preparations for full implementation of this project, as approved by the SES Coordinator.

Provide funding for travel and process travel claims, in accordance with state rules, regulations, and

Page 83: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

15 | P a g e

rates, for SSIP supported activities outside of the school system, as approved by the SES Coordinator.

Provide funding for expert and/or sole source consultants to offer specialized professional development and technical assistance to support SSIP Demonstration Sites. -Implementation Science and creating Implementation Teams -Evidence-based Professional Development -Co-teaching Connection Dr. Marilyn Friend http://marilynfriend.com/index.htm

The ALSDE SSIP Instructional Coach agrees to:

Participate in evidenced-based technical assistance training consistent with the body of knowledge and research related to the Implementation Science Framework (NIRN) (Fixen et al., 2005).

Participate in training on evidence-based practices including Implementation Science (Fixen et al., 2005), instructional coaching (Knight, 2007), co-teaching and co-planning (Friend & Cook, 2013; Ploessl et al., 2010), and positive behavioral management (Sprick, 2009) in concert with training offered by the SPDG through the Project Closing the Gap: Goal 2.

Participate in the ALSDE SES, School System, and Building Implementation Team meetings.

Facilitate and assist the middle school demonstration site Implementation Teams with funding and/or resource decisions.

Assist School System and Building Implementation Teams with SSIP Demonstration Site logistics such as: -designing a Demonstration site timeline and/or logic model, -participating in SSIP Demonstration Site activities required by ALSDE SES, -developing a monthly calendar indicating tentative activities related to PD and TA such as meetings with the SSIP Demonstration Site Project School System and Building Implementation Teams, administrators, coaches, school system representatives and/or other personnel relevant to the project’s goals and activities, and -creating and submitting sign-in sheets for approved PD (Please email documentation to ALSDE SES staff member, Theresa Farmer at [email protected] .)

Participate in data collection regarding project related PD, TA, co-planning, co-teaching, consultation, and co-teaching implementation activities.

Participate in collecting, submitting and reporting student outcome data results as required by ALSDE SES according to agreed-upon timelines.

Provide evidence-based TA consistent with the body of knowledge and research related to the Implementation Science Framework (Fixen et al., 2005).

Provide evidence-based PD and instructional coaching in collaborative school environments, co- teaching, and co-planning to special and general educators, as well as staff.

Provide follow-up instructional coaching with specific emphasis on improvement of reading and/or mathematics instruction.

Attend Regional Planning Team (RPT) meetings and other regional meetings.

Collaborate with other state initiatives such as the Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI) and Alabama Math Science and Technology Initiative (AMSTI), as appropriate, to provide information/resources on evidence-based practices that improve reading and mathematics instruction for all students in middle school.

Page 84: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

16 | P a g e

The School System agrees to:

Establish both a System and Building SSIP Implementation Team to collaborate with the assigned instructional coach and ALSDE SES SSIP Implementation Team to prepare for readiness of a demonstration site by January 2016. Team members will participate in an Implementation Science Professional Learning Community conducted by ALSDE staff and/or ALSDE SPDG consultant(s). Active Implementation Teams will serve three key functions -ensure implementation, -engage the community, and -create hospitable environments.

Ensure the System Implementation Team includes: -System Superintendent -System Special Education Director/Coordinator -System Assistant Superintendent -System Director of Curriculum and Instruction -School Principal -Assigned SSIP Instructional Coach -ARI Instructional Coach (if possible) -School Special Educator -School General Educator -Other relevant members

Ensure the Building Implementation Team includes: -System Special Education Director/Coordinator -School Principal -Assigned SSIP Instructional Coach -ARI Instructional Coach (if possible) -Selected School Special Educators -Selected School General Educators -Selected Parent Representative -Other Relevant members

Collaborate with and assist the assigned SSIP Instructional Coach with coordinating SSIP Demonstration Site Project logistics which includes the submission of an Action Plan submitted by (date) and includes: -detailed timelines leading to readiness for becoming a demonstration site by (date), -detailed plans for co-teaching as a service delivery approach (Friend & Cook, 2013) to insure all grade levels at Middle School have at least one co-taught class in English language Arts (ELA); -scheduled and protected co-planning time for each grade level at a minimum of one hour per week, per co-taught class; -intentional scheduling (Mapping: scheduling for students with disabilities) to insure maximizing current resources; -implementation of the CHAMPS program (Safe & Civil Schools) (Sprick, 2009) in the relevant classrooms in the middle school feeder pattern; -implementation of an evidenced-based/researched-based reading intervention/program for identified students in an effort to close the achievement gap in reading.

Page 85: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

17 | P a g e

Participate in data collection regarding SSIP PD, TA, co-planning, co-teaching, consultation, and co-teaching dyad implementation dyads.

Provide student outcome data results as required by ALSDE SES according to the agreed-upon timelines.

Participate in PD activities coordinated by the assigned SSIP Instructional Coach (e.g., seminars, webinars, conferences/conventions, meetings, trainings) designed to support SSIP Demonstration Site goals and outcomes.

Participate in monthly and/or bi-monthly meetings to address: -assessing and creating ongoing “buy-in” and readiness, -installing and sustaining Implementation Drivers (NIRN) (Fixen et al., 2005), -monitoring implementation of evidence-based practices and related outcomes, -monitoring timelines and Action Plans, and -solving problems and building sustainability.

Participate in at least one SSIP Demonstration Site observation per quarter and provide post- observation feedback during the regularly scheduled meetings.

Offer visitation opportunities following the first year of implementation) to other school systems with the region, thereby expanding the scope of the project over the next few years.

Enter site PD activities into STIPD.

Mutual Agreement: All partners commit to attend scheduled meetings (quarterly and as needed) and if necessary nominate a proxy.

Page 86: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

18 | P a g e

SSIP Demonstration Site Project Cascading Logic and Site Action Plan

Input/How Desired Output/What Specific

Documentation/ Product

ACTIONS TIMELINES PERSON(s) RESPONSIBLE

1. STUDENTS: How will students benefit? a. Teachers’ consistent use of effective positive behavioral intervention and supports (PBIS) [i.e., CHAMPS (Sprick, 2007)] with high fidelity as intended. b. Co-Teachers’ consistent use of effective co-planning with high fidelity as intended (Ploessl et al., 2010). c. Teachers’ consistent use of effective co-teaching approaches with high fidelity as intended (Friend & Cook, 2013).

(The Ultimate Goals): a. Documentation of improved outcomes of student classroom behavior. b. Documentation of improved student academic outcomes by students with and without disabilities.

Page 87: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

19 | P a g e

2. TEACHERS: How will teachers be supported? a. System Implementation Team support provided to teachers involved in the demonstration site project. b. School Implementation Team support provided to teachers involved in the demonstration site project. c. Assigned SSIP Instructional Coaches support provided to teachers involved in the project for the purpose of becoming a regional demonstration site for co- planning, co-teaching approaches, and positive behavioral classroom management (CHAMPS):

1. Facilitation of Implementation Team meetings;

2. Creation of a collaborative culture with the Implementation Teams and all stakeholders;

3. Implementation of effective communication tools for the

a. Documentation of consistent use of CHAMPS in the classroom with high fidelity to the program as intended. b. Documentation of consistent use of effective co-planning with high fidelity to the innovation as intended. c. Documentation of consistent use of effective co-teaching approaches with high fidelity to the approaches as intended. d. Documentation of permission by the teachers for their classrooms to become demonstration sites for state and regional educators as examples of effective implementation of

1. CHAMPS, 2. Co-planning, and 3. Co-teaching

approaches e. Documentation of teachers’ permission for regional educators to visit (remotely and physically)

Page 88: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

20 | P a g e

Implementation Teams and all stakeholders;

4. Coaching of co- teaching dyads based on effective coaching principles (Knight, 2007);

5. Coaching of co- teachers for co-planning and co-teaching approaches with embedded specially designed instruction (SDI) for students with disabilities (SWD) (Friend & Cook)

6. Facilitation of the mapping of the master schedule process in order to create a conducive schedule for co-planning and co-teaching to embed SDI for SWD;

7. Establishment of site readiness for demonstration status;

8. Facilitation of the communication to regional support staff of the readiness for use as a demonstration site;

9. Facilitation of visits to the demonstration sites

classrooms.

Page 89: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

21 | P a g e

(remotely and physically); 10. Attendance at

regularly scheduled meetings for SSIP Instructional Coaches, ALSDE staff, and consultants;

11. Attendance at professional development sessions as determined by the ALSDE staff;

12. Facilitation of the gathering of the documented evidence and data necessary to measure effectiveness of the project;

13. Facilitation of a collaborative partnership between system, school and state instructional technology personnel; d. Teachers involved in the demonstration site project provided PD by trainers for the CHAMPS program. e. Teachers involved in the demonstration site project provided PD on co-planning f. Teachers involved in the demonstration site project provided PD on co-teaching

Page 90: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

22 | P a g e

3. IMPLEMENTATION TEAMS (System and School Levels): How will System and school implementation teams be supported? a. System Implementation Teams supported through the assigned SSIP Instructional Coaches. b. School Implementation Teams supported through the assigned SSIP Instructional Coaches. c. Implementation teams supported via an Action Plan for addressing barriers facilitated by the SSIP Instructional Coach.

a. Documented effective System Implementation Team created to support teachers in collaborating with assigned SSIP Instructional Coach and ALSDE to support activities. b. Documented effective School Implementation Team created to support teachers in collaborating with the assigned SSIP Instructional Coach and ALSDE staff to support activities. c. Documented Action Plan d. Documented timeline for the full implementation of the Demonstration Site developed under the guidance of the SSIP Instructional Coach; e. Documentation of selected school personnel for participation in activities (e.g., seminars, Webinars, conferences, meetings, PD sessions, and trainings), designed to support Demonstration Sites’ goals and outcomes

Page 91: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

23 | P a g e

under the guidance of the SSIP Instructional Coach; f. Documented Monthly Claims for Contract Reimbursement under the guidance of the SSIP Instructional Coach; g. Documentation/ evidence of Demonstration Site activities required by ALSDE Special Education Service (SES) under the guidance of the SSIP Instructional Coach:

1. Monthly calendars indicating tentative activities related to PD, TA, or Team meetings;

2. Meetings notes/ communication logs with the Implementation Teams other personnel relevant to SSIP goals and activities;

3. Completed Sign-in sheets for approved PD emailed to SPDG staff member T. Farmer

4. Completed Substitute Verification Forms for activities relevant to SSIP goals and activities as per

Page 92: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

24 | P a g e

SES template; 5. Documentation of

travel reimbursement in accordance with ALSDE policies and procedures; h. Documentation of student outcome data collected, reported, and submitted as required by ALSDE SES according to agreed-upon timelines; i. Documented data regarding PD, TA, co- planning, co-teaching approaches, consultation, positive behavior classroom management, and teacher implementation activities under the guidance of the SSIP Instructional Coach; j. Documented permission and log of approved visitations (regional and state) to the sites (remotely and/or physically) to observe exemplary co-planning, co- teaching approaches, and positive behavioral classroom management.

Page 93: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

25 | P a g e

4. REGIONAL: How will regional supports be developed? State assigned ALSDE SES educational specialist supported by the SSIP Instructional Coaches through announcement of regional demonstration site readiness for the purpose of observing exemplary models of:

a. implementation of CHAMPS,

b. implementation of co- planning, and

c. implementation of co- teaching approaches.

Documented announcement to all schools in the region of the readiness and availability for scheduled visitations by regional educators at the demonstration sites to observe exemplary models of

a. implementation of CHAMPS

b. implementation of co- planning, and

c. implementation of co- teaching approaches.

Page 94: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

26 | P a g e

5. STATE: How does the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Team support the Demonstration Site Project? a. Provides personnel support through SSIP Instructional Coaches. b. Provides funding for:

1. approved evidence- based training, implementation resources, consultant support, coaching activities related to demonstration site priorities;

2. approved TA activities; 3. approved travel and

process travel claims, in accordance with state rules, regulations, and rates, for SSIP supported activities outside of the system.

a. Documented effective SSIP Implementation Teams; b. Documented exemplary demonstration sites created to support System Implementation Teams, School Implementation Teams, Teachers, Students throughout the regions; c. Documented access to

1. SSIP Instructional Coaches,

2. technical assistance, 3. PD, and 4. access to approved

consultants

Page 95: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

27 | P a g e

Appendices

Page 96: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

28 | P a g e

Appendix A

SSIP Demonstration Site Project: Instructional Coaches Table (as of August 2015)

ALSDE Region

Regional In-

Service Center

Local Education

Agency (LEA)

LEA Selected

Middle School

LEA Super-

intendent

LEA Special

Education Coordinator

State Educational System (SES)

Regional Specialist

SES Instructional

Coach 2014-2015

1 UNA TBD Diann Jones

2 Athens Athens City

Athens MS (Gr. 7-8) (256) 233-6620 Prin. Mr. Mike Bishop

Mr. W. L. Holladay,III (256) 233-6600

Ms. Beth Patton, (Interim) (256) 233- 6600

Ms. Tina Sanders

Dr. Marti Rizzuto

3 A & M

UAH

TBD Alicia Myrick

4 UAT

UWA

Hale County

Greensboro MS(6-8) (334) 624-4005 Prin. Mr. Anthony

Sanders

Ms. Osie A. Pickens (334) 624-8836

Ms. Christine Day (334) 624-2293

Ms. Denise Gilham

Ms. Vickie Brown

5 UAB Midfield

City

Rutledge MS (5-8)(205) 780- 8647 Prin. Mr. Harris

Ms. Demica Sanders (205) 923-2262

Ms. Stephanie Matthews (205) 923-2262

Mr. Curtis Gage

Dr. Betsy Stockdale

6 JSU Calhoun

County

White Plains MS (6-8) (256) 741-4700 Prin. Courtney Wilburn

Mr. Joseph Dean Dyar (256) 741-7400

Ms. Charlene Hill (256) 741-7427

Ms. Susan Goldthwaite

Dr. Debbie Patterson

7 UM Sylacauga

City

Nichols- Lawson MS (6-8) (256) 245-4376 Prin. Ms. Debbie Barnett

Mr. Michael Todd Freeman (256) 249-7004

Ms. Jennifer Rosato (256) 249-7012

Ms. Clare Ward

Ms. Gayle Jones

8 ASU TBD Ms. Billie

Thompson

9 AU Elmore Wetumpka MS Interim Ms. Temeyra Dr. Kemeche Ms. Sharon

Page 97: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

29 | P a g e

County (5-8) (334) 567-1413 Prin. Tremeca Jackson

(334) 567-1200

McElrath 334-567- 1224

Green Lovelady & Ms. Melissa Nannini & Ms. Charlie Jackson (Transition Coach)

10 USA TBD Ms. Cynthia Mayo

11-A Troy Andalusia

City

Andalusia MS (6-8) (334) 222-6542 Prin. Dr. Daniel Shakespeare

Mr. Ted Watson (334) 222-3186

Ms. Sonja Hines (334) 222- 3186 x5

Mr. Joe Eiland

Ms. Becky Hardiman

11-B Troy Enterprise

City

Coppinville MS (7)(334) 347- 2215 Prin. Mr. David West

Dr. Camille H. Wright (334) 347- 9532

Ms. Joylee Cain (334) 347- 4287

Mr. Joe Eiland

Ms. Becky Hardiman

Page 98: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

30 | P a g e

Appendix B

Protocol Questions for Grant Purchases Date:_ Name of person completing this questionnaire:_ Position:_ Grant funds being used: School:_ Questions to be answered:

System:_

1. Begin with the “Why.” Please explain why this purchase is necessary.

2. What are the products or services? Who is the vendor? Please list the cost. (Brief description.)

3. Is this product evidence-based? YES or NO. If yes, please provide some of the evidence. (You may, also, embed hyperlinks to the research.)

4. How is this product related to the goals of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)?

5. Who will use this product? To what extent do the individuals have the capacity to implement the intervention/product?

6. Please list any additional PD needed to implement the product.

7. When will this product be used?

Page 99: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

31 | P a g e

Appendix C

Interview Protocol for Collaborators

(Adapted from Evergreen Evaluation & Consulting)

Date:

Participant:

Interviewer:

Role:

Introduction

Thank the participant for his/her willingness to participate in the evaluation.

The purpose of the conversation is to learn more about their perceptions of project.

The responses will not be anonymous, but identifying information will remain confidential. Their

confidentiality will be protected by:

o Combining their responses with responses from other interviewees;

o Not sharing their name with their comments (‘one interviewee said,’ etc.); and

o Not sharing raw data with anyone at the ALSDE (only EEC will have access to the raw

notes).

Share that the interview portion will take approximately 30 minutes.

We are assisting the Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE) to evaluate the activities, goals,

and outcomes. Currently, we are on collecting data for the federal performance measures as well as

qualitative data to inform the USDOE about what is working well and what could be improved. For our

interview today, I would like to hear about your thoughts about the project. As you are answering, please

keep in mind that we are looking at all levels of the grant—including the ALSDE, districts, schools, and

teachers. If you have any questions or comments during the interview, please feel free to interject at any

time. Additionally, I am not audio-recording these interviews, however if you would like me to stop

typing at any time, please let me know.

Question Additional Probes

1. The first item I'd like to discuss addresses the

project’s goals. What do you see as the purpose

a) How clear are the goals and objectives of the

project?

Page 100: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

32 | P a g e

of the project?

2. Let’s talk a little bit about roles. What do you see

as your role on the project?

a) How clear are the various roles of the

project?

b) What could be done to make those roles

clearer?

3. Let’s move on to the topic of communication.

One of the items in the grant was to create a

communication plan. How effective is the

current system of communication?

a) How is communication at all levels--with the

state? District? Schools? Teachers? Other?

b) What could be done to create a system of

communication?

4. Let’s talk about short-term outcomes. Have you

seen any changes as a result of the project

professional development and coaching (your

own or someone else’s)?

a) Changes in teacher or administrator

practices; organizational or policy changes;

school culture; re-allocation of roles and

responsibilities; etc.

b) You may have received professional

development for the project. Do you feel

like you have used the information from that

PD in some way? If so, how?

5. What are the strengths of Project?

Page 101: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

6. What are the barriers of Project? Do you have suggestions for removing or

alleviating those barriers?

7. Do you have any further comments?

33 I Page

Page 102: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

34 | P a g e

Appendix D: Acronyms

ALSDE = Alabama State Department of Education AMSTI = Alabama Math, Science Technology Initiative APR = Annual Performance Report ARI = Alabama Reading Initiative CEIE = Creating Effective Inclusive Environments CHAMPS = CTP = Closing the Gap ESEA = Elementary and Secondary Education Act GE = General Educator IC = Instructional Coach/Coaching IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act IEP = Individual Educational Program LEA = Local Education Agency MOU = Memorandum of Understanding NIRN = National Implementation Research Network TA= Technical Assistance TBD = To Be Determined OGAP = On-Going Assessment Project PBIS = Positive Behavior Intervention System PD = Professional Development RPT = Regional Planning Teams) SSIP = State Systemic Improvement Plan SE = Special Educator SES = Special Education Services SPDG = State Personnel Development Grant SPDG = State Personnel development Grant SPDG AG = State Personnel development Grant Advisory Group SWD = Students with disabilities SWoD = Students without Disabilities

Page 103: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

35 | P a g e

References

Cornett, J., & Knight, J. (2009). Research on coaching. In J. Knight (Ed.), Coaching: Approaches and Perspectives (pp. 192-216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Dieker, L. (2008). Co-teaching lesson plan book. Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.

Dieker, L., & Murawski, W. (2003). Co-teaching at the secondary level: Unique issues, current trends, and suggestions for success. High School Journal, 86(4), 1-13.

Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation

research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, National Implementation Research Network. (FMHI Publication No. 231).

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2013). Interactions: Collaboration for school professionals (7th ed.).

Boston, MA: Pearson.

Hang, Q., & Raben, K. (2009). An examination of co-teaching: Perspectives and efficacy

indicators. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 250-268.

Huberman, M., Navo, M., & Parrish, T. (2012). Effective practices in high performing districts

serving students in special education. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 25(2), 59-71.

Kansas Coaching Project Center for Research on Learning. (n.d.). About coaching. Retrieved

from http://instructionalcoach.org/about/about-coaching

Kilanowski-Press, L., Foote, C. J., & Rinaldo, V. J. (2010). Inclusions classrooms and teachers: A survey of current practices. International Journal of Special Education, 25(3), 43-56.

Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Knight, J. (2014). What Coaches Do: Participant Workbook. Lawrence, KS: Instructional Coaching Group.

McDuffie, K., Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (2009). Promoting success in content area

classes: Is value added through co-teaching? Exceptional Children, 75, 493-510.

NIRN (n.d.). Implementation Science: A Common Understanding: Modules and Lessons. Retrieved from http://implementation.fpg.unc.edu/modules-and-lessons

Page 104: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

36 | P a g e

Pearl, C., Dieker, L., & Kirkpatrick, R. M. (2012). A five-year retrospective on the Arkansas Department of Education co-teaching project. Professional Development in Education, 38, 571-587.

Ploessl, D., Rock, M., Schoenfeld, N., & Blanks, B. (2010). On the same page: Practical

techniques to enhance co-teaching interactions. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(3), 158-168.

Sprick, R. (2009). CHAMPS: A proactive & positive approach to classroom management. Eugene, OR: Pacific Northwest Publishing, Inc.

Vannest, K. J., & Hagen-Burke, S. (2010). Teacher time use in special education. Remedial and

Special Education, 31, 126-142.

Walsh, J. M. (2011). Co-teaching as a school system strategy for continuous improvement.

Preventing School Failure, 56(1), 29-36.

Page 105: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Appendix II

Sample Agendas

Page 106: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Meeting for SSIP and SPDG Coaches Whetstone Conference Room 3346 ALSDE, Montgomery, AL

February 9, 2016, 10:00 am - 4:00 pm • Welcome (Susan Williamson & Theresa Farmer) • SSIP State Discretionary Funds & SPDG Grant Update (Susan Williamson & Theresa Farmer) • S&CS Foundations Cohort Project (SPDG) Update (Theresa Farmer) • Data-Driven Accountability (Part Two) (Fannie Adams and Joe Eiland) • Goal 3--Transition (Curtis Gage) • Demonstration Site Status per site

(a) Co-teaching (b) Co-planning (c) CHAMPS (classroom) (d) External Evaluations for Demonstration Status (e) Action Plans (g) Successes and Challenges

• Site Visit Protocols: Two Types A. SSIP Visitation/Observer Documentation Notebook (Pam Howard)

1. Documentation Notebook 2. SSIP Protocol Forms

B. School-Based Site Protocols o White Plains MS (Dr. Debbie Patterson) o Greensboro MS (Vickie Brown) o Others?

• PD Needs (Howard) • Other business/needs for next meeting/general suggestions from the SSIP Coaches

Dates to remember in 2016: -Feb. 22-23, ALA CASE, Hoover, AL -Feb. 24, AL CEC, Hoover, AL -February 29, Mar. 1-2, Instructional Coaching PD with Ann Hoffman, Location TBD

-Mar. 7-8, Transition Conference, Auburn, AL -Mar. 14-15, Mapping the Schedule for Co-teaching and Co-planning PD (Dr. Michael Remus); Location TBD

-June 7-8, S&CS Foundations Cohort Training #2 of 3, Pelham, AL

-July 11, MEGA Pre-Conference, Co-Teaching, Dr. Marilyn Friend, Mobile, AL -July 27-28, S&CS Foundations Cohort Training #3 of 3, Pelham, AL

Page 107: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

SSIP Middle School

Demonstration Site Project

SSIP Coaches Meeting

Location: Whetstone Conference Room 3346

ALSDE, Montgomery, AL

August 11, 2015, 10:00 am - 4:00 pm

• Welcome (Susan Williamson & Theresa Farmer) • As per site:

Discretionary Grant Award (Theresa Farmer & SSIP Coaches) Discretionary Grant Award/SSIP Demo Site MOUs (T. Farmer) SSIP Demo Site Action Plans (T. Farmer) CHAMP Time Review (SSIP Coaches) Roles and Responsibilities for consultants to support SSIP Coaches

(Farmer & Howard) Mapping the Schedule (SSIP Coaches) General Concerns -Barriers, Logistics, TA Support, IC Support & Fiscal

Calendar (Farmer & Howard) • Cascading Logic Model/Project Information Booklet DRAFT Review (Howard) • Looking at the High-Quality PD (HQPE) Training Observation Checklist (Farmer) • Analyzing the Qualities and Components of being Demo-Ready

o Fidelity of practice (Co-planning, Co-teaching, & CHAMPS) (Farmer & Howard) (Note: Coaches cannot be evaluators)

o Is MORE Co-planning PD for SSIP Coaches and/or Co-Teachers needed? (Howard)

o Demo-Readiness Components Hexagon Tool Rubric (NIRN) Analyzing the Qualities and Components of being Demo-Ready:

Worksheet (Howard) Stages of Implementation Analysis: Where Are We? Pages 6-9 (NIRN) Demo-Site Readiness Scale (Howard)

Page 108: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

SSIP Demonstration Site Coaches’ Meeting Location: Whetstone Conference Room 3346

ALSDE, Montgomery, AL November 10, 2015, 10:00 am - 4:00 pm

• Welcome (Susan Williamson & Theresa Farmer) • Per demo site:

Action Plan Successes Challenges/Barriers Opportunities to Work Collaboratively With Colleagues

(SSIP Coaches & Consultants) • Analyzing the Qualities and Components of being Demo-Ready (Howard)

o Demo-Readiness Components Who is video-recordable by December 1, 2015

(Shirley Farrell’s Notes- T. Farmer will share) Technology Support Session with Shirley Farrell

(Athens, Greensboro, Sylacauga, & White Plains Middle Schools) • Schedule Pam or Theresa for External Evaluations

(Note: SSIP Coaches should not be evaluators) o Forms and Documents (Howard & Ploessl)

Revised Co-Teaching Evaluation Form Newly created Co-Planning Evaluation Form

• Fidelity of Practice (Co-Planning, Co-teaching, & CHAMPS) (Farmer & Howard) • Documents that will be needed on site (Howard)

• Discretionary Funds (Susan Williamson & Theresa Farmer) • SPDG Funds (Susan Williamson & Theresa Farmer) • Safe & Civil Schools Cohort Work (Susan Williamson & Theresa Farmer) • SSIP Demonstration Sites Phase II (Susan Williamson & Theresa Farmer) • Schedules of all Co-Teaching Dyads (GE and SE) (see examples) • Decision–Making Matrices for all co-taught classes (no student names for guests) • Collection of Co-Planning forms attached to lesson plans • Is MORE Co-planning PD for Coaches and/or Co-Teachers needed? (Ploessl & Howard) • What is the role of the SSIP coaches in January 2016? • Protocols

o See Action Plans for needed protocols/documents o Get into teams of three to draft protocols

• 2016 SSIP Coaches’ Meetings

Page 109: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Appendix III

AL SSIP Logic Model

Page 110: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

AL SSIP Logic Model

Inputs

•ED inputs: Indicator 17 guidance; TA; monitoring; federal funding

•AL established data targets

•ALSDE-SES staff expertise

•Funding & experience from SPDG project

•ARI & AMSTI instructional support

•Prevention & Support

•State 2020 Plan

•ALSDE monitoring

•Research on implementation science, co-teaching, SCS

•Jim Knight’s Big Four & instructional coaching

•Existing state and community partnerships

•APEC support & training

•Content consultants

•Experienced coaches

•Stakeholder and parent engagement and support

Activities

•Implement high-quality & engaging instruction for all students in gen. ed. classrooms in demo sites

•Create a safe & civil learning environment

•Provide comprehensive transition activities and supports in demo sites

•Teachers & administrators in demo sites have training, coaching, and resources to support SWD in gen. ed. classroom

•Teachers have PD & resources to provide transition supports

•Develop a collaboration & partnership between general and special ed teachers

•Create a system & culture for supporting SWD & teachers in demo sites

•Foster a collaborative & communicative culture within the district & community

•Coordinate with transition groups to develop a state transition collaborative

•Implement a continuous improvement process

•Engage parents & stakeholders in training, info. sharing, and program feedback for program improvement

Outputs

•10-12 demo sites are formed and prepared to model practices

•At least 3 transition demo sites are created

•SWD have access to individualized, high-quality instruction in co-taught classrooms

•Students learn in a safe & civil environment

•SWD receive Transitions curriculum in class & are engaged in CBVI

•Teachers at demo sites trained/coached on co-teaching, co-planning, SCS, instruction, and transition practices

•Increased collaboration among general and special ed teachers

•Implementation Teams established, barriers to implementation identified, policies reviewed, resource needs identified

•Community partnerships are aligned for transition supports

•State transition groups joint meetings

•Parent, school, and community feedback

•Project evaluation data reviewed

Short-Term Outcomes

•Increased ACT Aspire & progress monitoring scores at demo sites

•Decreased achievement gap between SWD and SWOD

•Inc. % SWD proficient

•85%+ stud. engagement

•Increased SCS Student Survey safety scores

•Dec. in ODRs/ISS/OSS

•Dec. tardy & absences

•Students earn credit for Transition class

•Increased community work placements

•HS SWD attend and are involved in IEP meetings

•Educators have SSIP content knowledge

•Teachers show fidelity

•Inc. behavior management on STOIC

•Teacher and admin. satisfaction with SSIP

•Schedules, policies, finances support SSIP

•Increased parent knowledge about co-teaching, SCS, transition

•Inc. comm. partnerships

•Inc. comm. among transition partners

•Teachers & admins visit regional demo sites and adapt practices for own districts

Intermediate Outcomes

•Regional schools show increased Aspire and progress monitoring data

•Regional schools decrease SWD vs. SWOD achievement gap

•Dec. in ODRs/ISS/OSS in regional schools

•Students satisfied with learning environment

•Dec. in drop-out rates in SSIP schools

•Inc. grad rates for SWD in SSIP schools

•Inc. SWD enrolled in post-secondary schools in SSIP schools

•Increased SWD competitively employed in SSIP schools

•Increased teacher retention at SSIP schools

•Inc. teacher fidelity at regional schools

•Demo schools provide PD & TA to districts within region

•Increased % of parent involvement in SSIP & regional schools

•Inc. collaboration among transition partners

•Inc. number of districts adopting SSIP activities

•District/school policies support SSIP practices

Long-Term Outcomes

•Dec. in Indicator 2 (drop-out rates)

•Inc. in Indicator 1 (graduation)

•Inc. Indicator 14a (SWD enrolled in post-secondary schools)

•Increased Indicator 14b (SWD competitively employed)

•Increased AL teacher retention at SSIP schools

•Increased % Indicator 8 (parent involvement)

•Coordination among transition partners for transition activities

•Districts scale-up SSIP activities to elem. & HS

•Districts can sustain the SSIP activities

•District/school policies support SSIP practices

Assumptions: Improvement in other APR indicators; Commitment of partners; Building, district, community buy-in; Demo sites continue; Funding continued; Demonstration sites are representative of region; Post-School Outcomes Survey has high response rate/representative; Data are tracked

Page 111: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Appendix IV

Theory of Action Tables

Page 112: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

AL SSIP Theory of Action Tables

Key Strands of

Action

If the SEA… Then the LEA (teachers,

administrators)…

Then Teachers/ Families… …So that

Provide high-

quality,

engaging

instruction and

co-teaching in

the middle

school general

education

classroom.

…identifies 12 SSIP middle

school demonstration sites to

address improvement in

reading and math proficiency

that will serve as a site of best

practices for schools within the

region

...offers professional

development and coaching to

regional middle school

demonstration sites regarding

co-teaching/co-planning

…collaborates with the

Alabama Math, Science, and

Technology Initiative

(AMSTI) and the Alabama

Reading Initiative (ARI) to

provide professional

development on reading and

math instruction

…has the leadership, staff, and

policies in place to support the

implementation of co-

teaching/co-planning in

identified classrooms

…will increase their capacity

to co-teach students with

disabilities in the general

education setting

…will have greater awareness

of the SWD student

achievement data

…will develop protocols and

resources for schools within

the region who visit the co-

teaching/co-planning

demonstration site

…will show more

collaboration between general

and special education

…will co-plan to develop

specialized instruction and

implement accommodations

for SWD

…will offer individualized

reading and math instruction

for SWD in the general

education setting through co-

teaching

…will regularly assess

students to ensure gaps in

performance are addressed in

instruction

…will model and share ideas

with other teachers within the

region regarding co-

teaching/co-planning

practices

SWD demonstrate higher

reading and math

achievement levels over

time.

The gap between SWD and

students without disabilities

decreases over time.

SWD persist and graduate

from high school.

SWD have the needed

reading and math skills to

enroll in post-secondary

education or find

competitive employment

after graduation.

Other schools within the

region have the opportunity

to see best practices in co-

teaching/co-planning

implemented in school and

classroom settings.

Page 113: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Key Strands of

Action

If the SEA… Then the LEA (teachers,

administrators)…

Then Teachers/ Families… …So that

Offer safe and

supportive

learning

environments to

middle schools

through the

CHAMPS and

Foundations

Safe and Civil

Schools

programs.

…identifies 12 SSIP middle

school demonstration sites to

address improvement in

behavior outcomes that will

serve as a site of best practices

for schools within the region

...offers professional

development and coaching to

regional middle school

demonstration sites regarding

CHAMPS and Foundations

positive behavioral

intervention and support

programs

…has the leadership, staff, and

policies in place to support the

implementation of Safe and

Civil Schools practices in

classes and schoolwide

…will set expectations for

behavior as a school

…will have greater awareness

of the teacher/parent/student

survey data regarding effective

behavioral supports

…will develop protocols and

resources for schools within

the region who visit the Safe

and Civil Schools

demonstration site

…will set expectations for

behavior in the classroom and

communicate those

expectations with students

…will embed the Safe and

Civil Schools practices

consistently in the classroom

and school

…will give fewer Office

Discipline Referrals (ODRs)

over time

…will increase the time spent

on instruction

…will model and share ideas

with other teachers within the

region regarding positive

behavioral intervention and

support programs

SWD will have fewer ODRs,

suspensions, and expulsions

compared to pre-program

data.

SWD will have more

reading and math

instructional time.

SWD have greater

satisfaction with their

learning environment.

SWD persist and graduate

from high school.

SWD have the needed

reading and math skills to

enroll in post-secondary

education or find

competitive employment

after graduation.

Other schools within the

region have the opportunity

to see best practices in Safe

and Civil Schools programs

implemented in school and

classroom settings.

Page 114: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Key Strands of

Action

If the SEA… Then the LEA (teachers,

administrators)…

Then Teachers/ Families… …So that

Create a system

and culture for

supporting

students with

disabilities,

teachers, and

administrators

through

implementation

science

practices.

…selects schools for each

region consistent with the

Exploration Stage of

implementation to serve as

SSIP demonstration sites

…offers professional

development on

implementation science to

middle school and high school

demonstration sites

…offers professional

development and coaching on

instructional coaching to

administrators and coaches in

middle and high school

demonstration sites

…offers professional

development on mapping the

schedule for SWD for middle

school demonstration sites

…provides districts with

coaches to work with district

and building administrators

regarding implementing the

SSIP initiatives

…will create school-based

Implementation Teams for

leadership, professional

development, and coaching

…will create a schedule for

meeting the needs of SWD

based on mapping the

schedule, and will implement

the schedule in the SSIP sites

…will have greater awareness

and skills regarding

instructional coaching and

implementation science

…will collaborate with SSIP

coaches to implement the SSIP

initiatives

…will develop protocols and

resources for schools within

the region who visit the

demonstration sites

…will have greater awareness

and understanding of how the

various SSIP components

complement each other to

create better outcomes for

SWD

…will work with

administrators to implement

mapping the schedule

…will collect student-level

and teacher-level data, and

make adjustments based on

the results

…will model and share ideas

with other teachers within the

region regarding SSIP

programs and practices

SWD receive comprehensive

services to address their

academic, behavior, and

secondary transition needs.

SWD are placed in the

appropriate general

education setting, with the

supports they need to meet

their IEP goals.

Teachers, administrators,

district administrators, and

parents communicate and

collaborate to better serve

SWD.

Other schools within the

region have the opportunity

to see best practices in co-

teaching/co-planning, Safe

and Civil Schools, and

transition implemented in

school and classroom

settings.

Page 115: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Key Strands of

Action

If the SEA… Then the LEA (teachers,

administrators)…

Then Teachers/ Families… …So that

Create and

publicize a

model of

comprehensive,

research-based

transition

services for

high school

students with

disabilities

through the

development of

transition

demonstration

sites.

…identifies three SSIP high

school demonstration sites,

with at least one site added per

year, to address improvement

in secondary transition and

preparation for post-school

outcomes to serve as a site of

best practices for schools

within the region

...offers professional

development, coaching, and

resources to high school

demonstration sites regarding

implementing a transition class

for SWD

…provides high school

demonstration sites The

Transitions Curriculum for

implementing in transition

classes

…offers professional

development and coaching to

high school demonstration

sites regarding community-

based vocational instruction

(CBVI) and establishing job

site connections for SWD

…partners with the Alabama

SPDG and the Alabama PTI to

…has the leadership, staff, and

policies in place to support the

implementation of secondary

transition programs

…will offer a credit-bearing

transition class for SWD and

design student schedules for

students in the Life Skills

Pathway to attend the class

…will ensure all special

education teachers receive

professional development

regarding transition and

preparing for post-school

outcomes

…will establish and foster new

community partnerships for

vocational instruction

…will develop protocols and

resources for schools within

the region who visit the

transition demonstration site

…will work with families of

SWD regarding transition in a

collaborative relationship

…will develop a transition

course, including The

Transitions Curriculum, that

addresses the areas of

students’ IEP goals

…will identify and use

appropriate vocational and

interest assessments for SWD

that guide IEP planning

…will work with families of

SWD regarding transition in a

collaborative relationship

…will assist in the placement

of SWD in appropriate in-

school and community-based

vocational settings, and

provide support

…will model and share ideas

with other teachers within the

region regarding transition

practices

Students with disabilities

have the knowledge and

skills to assist with post-

secondary planning.

A greater percentage of high

school SWD participate in

their IEP meetings.

SWD gain competitive

employment skills through

vocational instruction.

SWD graduate from high

school.

SWD enroll in post-

secondary education or find

competitive employment

after graduation.

Teachers, administrators,

district administrators, and

parents communicate and

collaborate to better serve

SWD transitioning from

high school.

Other schools within the

region have the opportunity

to see best practices in

transition implemented in

classroom, school, and

district settings.

Page 116: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Key Strands of

Action

If the SEA… Then the LEA (teachers,

administrators)…

Then Teachers/ Families… …So that

provide secondary transition

resources for parents

Collaborate

with transition

groups to

coordinate the

statewide

transition

infrastructure

and strengthen

the delivery of

transition

services from

state to student.

…revises the Alabama Post-

School Outcomes Survey

administration schedule to

ensure that LEAs collect data

biannually

…provides technical

assistance and information

dissemination to teachers and

parents regarding transition

best practices and strategies

that lead to improved student

post-school outcomes

…collaborates with national

TA&D Centers to develop and

implement a statewide

transition infrastructure and

coordinate transition services

among the ALSDE-SES and

other transition state teams

…will administer the Alabama

Post-School Outcomes Survey

biannually

…will review the transition

modules and information, and

have a greater awareness about

transition best practices

…will compare transition best

practices with existing district

practices and create a plan to

addresses needed policies,

programming, and resources

…will receive consistent and

coordinated information from

the ALSDE regarding

secondary transition policies,

the transition information on

the IEP, and best practices

regarding transition, and share

that information with teachers

and building administrators

…will engage with parents in

discussions regarding

secondary transition practices

and assessments for SWD

…will implement new district

transition plans to

demonstrate best practices in

secondary transition

…will communicate with

students and parents

regarding district transition

plans and the effect on

students

…will have a greater

awareness of the state policies

and practices regarding

secondary transition and will

use that information for IEP

development and transition

planning with students

The ALSDE and LEAs have

access to more accurate

post-school outcomes

(Indicator 14) data.

The ALSDE and LEAs use

the Alabama Post-School

Outcomes Survey results to

modify or create new

transition programming and

practices.

Students, parents, teachers,

and district administrators

report greater

communication and

collaboration regarding

secondary transition

practices and planning.

Parents involvement rates

will increase.

IEPs for SWD reflect the

skills, assessments, and

goals of the student

Page 117: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Key Strands of

Action

If the SEA… Then the LEA (teachers,

administrators)…

Then Teachers/ Families… …So that

SWD enroll in post-

secondary education or find

competitive employment

after graduation.

Transition partners at the

state level report greater

collaboration for transition

discussions and planning

Manage project

activities based

on the

implementation

science

practices of

selection,

training,

coaching,

data/evaluation,

and systemic

improvement.

…select, interview, hire, and

train instructional coaches for

each SSIP demonstration site,

and identify a supervisor for

the SSIP coaches

…provides districts with

financial resources to schools

and districts in order to

implement SSIP initiatives,

and oversees fiscal

management

…oversees the collection of

evaluation data, including

progress monitoring data, to

determine school, teacher, and

student performance and make

mid-course corrections

…leads school and district

implementation teams through

an analysis of local

infrastructure needs and

weaknesses, and identifies

…has the leadership, staff, and

policies in place to support the

implementation of co-

teaching/co-planning and Safe

and Civil Schools practices

…has the leadership, staff, and

policies in place to support the

implementation of secondary

transition programs

…has protocols and resources

for schools within the region

who visit the demonstration

sites

…uses financial resources

from the ALSDE to procure

staff time, consultants, and

materials, and incorporates the

expenditures into school and

district programming

…collects and reviews data for

the SSIP sites and reviews

data, observations, and

…will implement the

evidenced-based co-

teaching/co-planning,

behavior, and evidenced-

based transition practices

…will host visitors from

other districts within the

region to view the

implementation of the SSIP

practices

…will utilize materials

purchased to implement the

SSIP initiatives in the

classroom

…will collect, review, and

utilize student-level and

teacher-level data

…will implement the LEA’s

plan for addressing

infrastructure weaknesses

Teachers, administrators,

district administrators, and

parents are satisfied with the

AL SSIP implementation.

SWD demonstrate higher

reading and math

achievement levels over

time.

SWD persist and graduate

from high school.

SWD have the needed

academic and behavioral

skills to enroll in post-

secondary education or find

competitive employment

after graduation.

Other schools within the

region have the opportunity

to see best practices in co-

teaching/co-planning, Safe

and Civil Schools, and

transition implemented in

Page 118: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Key Strands of

Action

If the SEA… Then the LEA (teachers,

administrators)…

Then Teachers/ Families… …So that

needed priorities within the

feeder patterns

…establishes a Professional

Learning Community to reflect

on demonstration site

implementation

evaluation findings to make

mid-course corrections

…creates a plan to address

infrastructure weaknesses and

needed priorities

…presents at meetings and/or

state conferences on the

implementation of evidence-

based practices

…will present at meetings

and/or state conferences on

the implementation of

evidence-based practices

school and classroom

settings.

Engage parents

and

stakeholders in

training,

information

sharing, and

feedback for

program

improvement.

…convenes multiple

stakeholder meetings across

groups, including SEAP

members, parent groups, and

community and professional

settings to solicit contributions

and feedback for SSIP

program improvement

…collaborate with the AL PTI

around development and

dissemination of relevant

resources for parents and other

stakeholders related to

…will have participation

among district and community

stakeholders in SSIP planning

and feedback

…will assist the ALSDE and

AL PTI with the dissemination

of resources and information

for parents and other

stakeholders related to

evidence-based practices

…will have increased

awareness among parents of

SWD of SSIP practices,

including transition, and

evaluation data for those sites

…will offer parent feedback

regarding the SSIP

implementation

…will participate in AL PTI

training and receive resources

for parents that will assist

parents in helping their

A higher percentage of

parents report having

increased awareness and

skills related to helping their

child make a successful

secondary transition.

There is a higher rate of

parent involvement.

More parents at SSIP sites

are satisfied with the

programs and services

related to transition at the

Page 119: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Key Strands of

Action

If the SEA… Then the LEA (teachers,

administrators)…

Then Teachers/ Families… …So that

evidence-based practices,

including transition services

…with the AL PTI, convene

parent focus groups and/or

interviews to solicit feedback

and perceptions about progress

of the SSIIP related to parent

concerns, including transition

information and resources

children make successful

secondary transitions

…will participate in parent

focus groups and offer ideas

and feedback regarding

program improvement at the

state and district levels,

materials developed for

parents of SWD, and needed

resources and training related

to transition

school, district, and the

ALSDE-SES.

There is a greater

collaboration among

community partners, parents,

and the ALSDE-SES.

The ALSDE has the data to

guide the implementation of

policies and practices of the

state related to the SSIP.

Page 120: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Appendix V

AL SSIP Outcomes by Evaluation Question and Performance Indicators

Page 121: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

AL SSIP Outcomes by Evaluation Question and Performance Indicators

1. Key Strand of Action: Provide high-quality, engaging instruction and co-teaching in the middle school general education classroom.

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

Output: SSIP middle school

demonstration sites are created.

Was at least one middle school demonstration site

identified for each region for co-teaching/co-

planning?

10 demonstration sites by Feb. 2016

12 demonstration sites total in 2016-2017

Output: PD offered to 12

demonstration sites regarding co-

teaching/co-planning.

How many instructional staff and administrators have

completed the co-teaching/co-planning PD?

48 teachers by 2016-2017 and 72 teachers

by 2019-2020

Did the teachers/administrators complete at least 8

hours of PD on co-teaching/co-planning?

75% of those trained received at least 8

hours of PD

Were the teachers/administrators satisfied with the

PD?

80% of those trained reported satisfaction

Do teachers/administrators demonstrate learning of

the co-teaching/co-planning content following the

PD?

70% score 80% or higher on post-

assessment

Output: The ALSDE-SES collaborates

with AMSTI & ARI to provide PD

regarding reading and math

instruction.

Did the ALSDE-SES, AMSTI, and ARI communicate

and collaborate regarding the SSIP activities?

Collaboration Survey results show

“Communication” level or higher

Was PD offered regarding reading and/or math

instruction to teachers at SSIP demonstration sites?

50% of co-teachers receive PD through

coaches, ARI, or AMSTI

Were the teachers satisfied with the PD?

80% of those trained report satisfaction

Short-Term Outcome: LEAs of the

demonstration sites have the

leadership, staff, and policies to

What changes have occurred in staffing, policies, and

administration as a result of SSIP participation?

Evidence of changes following

participation.

Page 122: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

support the implementation of co-

teaching/co-planning, as measured on

the Installation Checklist.

Do demonstration sites score higher on the Installation

Checklist each year?

50% “In-progress” by the end of the 2016-

2017 year, with a 10% increase each

subsequent year.

ST Outcome: Teachers have the skills

and knowledge to co-teach/co-plan

following PD and coaching.

Do teachers score at least 70% on the Co-

Teaching/Co-Planning Assessment?

70% score on assessment

Have teachers received instructional coaching on co-

teaching/co-planning following PD?

At least 33 teachers receive instructional

coaching for co-teaching/co-planning by

2016-2017

Are teachers satisfied with the instructional coaching

they have received?

80% report satisfaction

Can 70% of teachers demonstrate co-teaching and co-

planning with fidelity using the Co-Teaching/Co-

Planning Observation Form?

70% of co-teaching teachers can

demonstrate 80% of the core components

by 2020.

ST Outcome: Teachers and

administrators report having a greater

awareness of the SWD student

achievement data over time.

Do teachers and administrators report a greater

understanding of ACT Aspire and progress

monitoring data for SWD each year?

5% increase each year

How do teachers and administrators report using

student achievement data for SWD?

Reports of data usage

ST Outcome: SSIP demonstration sites

and their schools have resources and

protocols established for demonstration

site visitors.

Do SSIP demonstration sites have resources and

protocols established for site visitors?

Once determined to be demonstration

ready, all sites have evidence of resources

about implementation practices, schedules

for visitors, sign-in sheets, comment

forms, etc.

Do SSIP demonstration sites use the protocols they

have established for site visitors?

100% of demonstration sites hosting

visitors use established protocols for

school visitors.

Intermediate Outcome: General

education and special education

teachers in SSIP demonstration sites

report greater collaboration over

baseline.

Do general and special education co-teaching dyads

report greater collaboration in a Collaboration

Survey?

60% of teachers report higher levels of

collaboration

Page 123: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

Intermed. Outcome: Co-teaching dyads

develop specialized instruction and

strategies for implementing

accommodations through co-planning.

Do co-teaching dyads co-plan together? Co-teaching dyads co-plan at least

once/week

Do co-teaching dyads report satisfaction with the co-

planning process?

75% report satisfaction for co-planning

Do general and special education co-teaching dyads

demonstrate developing specialized instruction for

SWD on the Co-Planning Form?

50% by the end of 2016-2017, with a 10%

increase each subsequent year

Intermed. Outcome: Co-teaching dyads

offer individualized reading and math

instruction for SWD in the general

education classroom setting.

Have general and special education co-teaching dyads

offered individualized instruction for SWD?

70% of co-teaching teachers can

demonstrate 80% of the core components

by 2020.

How many SWD receive individualized instruction in

the co-taught classrooms?

223 students by 2018

Are students in the co-taught classroom engaged in

the instruction?

85% of students are observed as engaged

in instruction

Do co-teaching dyads report satisfaction with the co-

teaching process?

75% report satisfaction for co-teaching

Intermed. Outcome: Co-teaching dyads

regularly assess SWD and address

gaps in performance with instruction.

Do co-teaching dyads assess SWD on a progress

monitoring assessment at least three times/year?

80% of teachers assess SWD 3x/year

Have co-teaching dyads utilized the progress

monitoring results for SWD to adapt instruction?

60% of teachers use data

Intermed. Outcome: Co-teaching dyads

model and share ideas with other

teachers observing the demonstration

site.

How do co-teaching dyads at demonstration sites

model and share ideas with observing teachers?

Evidence of collaboration with observing

teachers

Intermed.: SWD in demonstration site

schools show higher reading and math

achievement levels compared to their

own baseline levels.

Are SWD in co-taught classrooms demonstrating

progress on reading and math progress monitoring and

ACT Aspire assessments over a year?

45% show increases on progress

monitoring; 40% show increases on Aspire

over a year, beginning in 2016-2017

Do certain disability subgroups show more growth on

progress monitoring assessments over a year?

Comparison of subgroups

Page 124: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

How does the growth curve for SWD compare to

students without disabilities in the same co-taught

classroom?

Comparison of SWD and SWOD

Intermed. Outcome: The reading and

math achievement gap levels between

SWD and students without disabilities

in the demonstration sites decreases

over time.

Did the achievement gap on progress monitoring and

ACT Aspire between SWD and SWOD decrease in

co-taught classrooms?

5 percentage points gap by 2016-2017,

decreasing to 3 percentage points by 2020

Do certain disability subgroups show more growth on

progress monitoring assessments over a year?

Comparison of subgroups

Is the achievement gap between SWD and SWOD less

in co-taught classrooms compared to non- co-taught

classrooms?

Comparison of co-taught classrooms and

non- co-taught classrooms

Long-Term Outcome: By 2020, the

graduation rate among SWD in the

demonstration sites is at least 78.94%.

What percentage of SWD from the SSIP high school

feeder patterns graduated by 2020?

Will exceed state target by 3% for SSIP

feeder pattern high schools

What percentage of SWD from the SSIP high school

feeder patterns dropped out by 2020?

Will exceed state target by 1.8% for SSIP

feeder pattern high schools

LT Outcome: By 2020, a higher

percentage of SWD in the

demonstration sites enroll in post-

secondary education or find

competitive employment after

graduation.

What percentage of SWD from the SSIP high school

feeder patterns were enrolled in post-secondary

education by 2020?

Will exceed state target by 3% for SSIP

feeder pattern high schools

What percentage of SWD from the SSIP high school

feeder patterns were competitively employed by

2020?

Will exceed state target by 4% for SSIP

feeder pattern high schools

LT Outcome: Schools throughout the

state have the opportunity to see co-

teaching/co-planning implemented at

the demonstration sites.

How many schools within a region visit demonstration

sites?

20 site visits by other schools by 2018

Do visiting schools adopt SSIP practices following

site visits?

3-5 schools adopt practices by 2018; 10

schools by 2020

Page 125: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

2. Key Strand of Action: Offer safe and supportive learning environments to middle schools through the CHAMPS and Foundations Safe Civil

Schools programs.

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

Output: SSIP middle school

demonstration sites are created.

Was at least one middle school demonstration site

identified for each region for addressing behavior

outcomes?

10 demonstration sites by Feb. 2016

12 demonstration sites total in 2016-2017

Output: PD offered to 12

demonstration sites regarding co-

teaching/co-planning.

How many instructional staff and administrators have

completed the CHAMPS and/or Foundations PD?

144 teachers by 2016-2017 and 160

teachers by 2019-2020

Were the teachers/administrators satisfied with the

PD?

80% of those trained reported satisfaction

Do teachers/administrators demonstrate learning of

the CHAMPS/Foundations content following the PD?

70% score 75% or higher on post-

assessment

Short-Term Outcome: LEAs of the

demonstration sites have the

leadership, staff, and policies to

support the implementation of Safe and

Civil Schools practices, as measured

on the Installation Checklist.

What changes have occurred in staffing, policies, and

administration as a result of SSIP participation?

Evidence of changes following

participation.

Do demonstration sites score higher on the Installation

Checklist each year?

50% “In-progress” by the end of the 2016-

2017 year, with a 10% increase each

subsequent year.

ST Outcome: School Implementation

Teams establish expectations for

behavior in the demonstration site

schools.

Were School Implementation Teams established? 1 team/ Foundations school

Did School Implementation Teams use data to

establish expectations for behavior?

List of expectations for each Foundations

school

ST Outcome: Teachers have the skills

and knowledge regarding effective

behavioral supports following PD and

coaching.

Do teachers score at least 75% on the PD post-

assessment?

70% score 75% or higher on post-

assessment

Have teachers received instructional coaching on

CHAMPS and/or Foundations following PD?

At least 125 teachers receive instructional

coaching for CHAMPS and/or

Foundations by 2016-2017

Page 126: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

Are teachers satisfied with the instructional coaching

they have received?

80% report satisfaction

Can 70% of teachers demonstrate CHAMPS with

fidelity using the Co-Teaching/Co-Planning

Observation Form?

70% of teachers can demonstrate 80% of

the core components by 2020

Do 70% of Foundations schools demonstrate fidelity

using the Foundations Rubric?

70% of Foundations schools can

demonstrate 80% of the core components

by 2020

ST Outcome: Teachers and

administrators report having a greater

awareness of the

teacher/parent/student Safe and Civil

Schools Survey data regarding effective

behavioral supports.

Do teachers and administrators in Foundations schools

report a greater understanding of the Safe and Civil

Schools Survey results?

75% report greater awareness

How do teachers and administrators report using Safe

and Civil Schools Survey data?

Reports of data usage

Did Foundations schools complete follow-up

observations and data collection, as outlined in the

Foundations Rubric?

75% of Foundations schools complete

Foundations Rubric each year, beginning

in 2016-2017

ST Outcome: SSIP demonstration sites

and their schools have resources and

protocols established for demonstration

site visitors.

Do SSIP demonstration sites have resources and

protocols established for site visitors?

Once determined to be demonstration

ready, all sites have evidence of resources

about implementation practices, schedules

for visitors, sign-in sheets, comment

forms, etc.

Do SSIP demonstration sites use the protocols they

have established for site visitors?

100% of demonstration sites hosting

visitors use established protocols for

school visitors.

Intermediate Outcome: Teachers

implementing Safe and Civil Schools

programs establish expectations for

behavior each year and share those

expectations with students.

Do teachers implementing CHAMPS establish

classroom expectations?

75% of teachers set expectations

Are students in classrooms implementing CHAMPS

aware of the classroom expectations?

75% on STOIC

Page 127: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

Are students aware of expectations for Foundations? 70% of Foundations schools demonstrate

fidelity

Intermed. Outcome: Teachers embed

the Safe and Civil Schools practices in

the classroom and school consistently.

How many classes and schools are implementing

CHAMPS and Foundations?

25 classes implementing CHAMPS

8 sites implementing Foundations

Are teachers implementing CHAMPS, as indicated on

the STOIC?

75% are “yes”

Are teachers implementing Foundations? Evidence of implementation using the

Foundations Rubric

Are teachers satisfied with the Safe and Civil Schools

practices?

75% report satisfaction with SCS

Are more students learning in a safe and civil

environment?

At least 2500 students are learning in a

safe and civil environment; Evidence of

fidelity on Foundations Rubric

What are barriers to implementing the Safe and Civil

Schools practices?

Qualitative results of interviews

Intermed. Outcome: Teachers spend an

increased amount of time on instruction

following the implementation of Safe

and Civil Schools practices.

Do teachers have more instructional time/student

compared to baseline?

3% increase in attendance over baseline,

observed instructional time; decrease in

tardies over baseline

Intermed. Outcome: Teachers model

and share ideas with other teachers

observing the demonstration site.

How do teachers at demonstration sites model and

share ideas with observing teachers?

Evidence of collaboration with observing

teachers

Intermed.: SWD in demonstration site

schools show fewer office discipline

referrals, in-school suspensions, out-of-

school suspensions, and expulsions

compared to baseline data.

Do SWD have fewer ODRs, ISS, OSS, and expulsions

in demonstration site schools than before the

implementation of Safe and Civil Schools programs?

2% decrease in 2016-2017, and 4.5% by

2020

Do certain disability subgroups have more referrals or

suspensions over a year?

Comparison of subgroups

Page 128: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

How do the referrals and suspension data for SWD

compare to students without disabilities in the same

school?

Comparison of SWD and SWOD

Intermed. Outcome: SWD in

demonstration site schools have

greater access to reading and math

instruction.

Has attendance improved following Foundations

implementation?

6% increase in 2016-2017, and 9% by

2020

Are there fewer tardies following Foundations

implementation?

8% decrease in 2016-2017, and 10% by

2020

Long-Term Outcome: SWD are more

satisfied with their learning

environment.

Do SWD report greater satisfaction with their school

and classes on the Safe and Civil Schools Survey?

7% increase in satisfaction by 2020

Are students more satisfied with the safety of their

schools, as measured on the Safe and Civil Schools

Survey?

5% increase in safety scores by 2020

Is there a decrease in discrepancy scores between

teachers, parents, and students regarding school

safety?

5% reduction in discrepancy scores by

2020

Long-Term Outcome: By 2020, the

graduation rate among SWD in the

demonstration sites is at least 78.94%.

What percentage of SWD from the SSIP high school

feeder patterns graduated by 2020?

Will exceed state target by 3% for SSIP

feeder pattern high schools

What percentage of SWD from the SSIP high school

feeder patterns dropped out by 2020?

Will exceed state target by 1.8% for SSIP

feeder pattern high schools

LT Outcome: By 2020, a higher

percentage of SWD in the

demonstration sites enroll in post-

secondary education or find

competitive employment after

graduation.

What percentage of SWD from the SSIP high school

feeder patterns were enrolled in post-secondary

education by 2020?

Will exceed state target by 3% for SSIP

feeder pattern high schools

What percentage of SWD from the SSIP high school

feeder patterns were competitively employed by

2020?

Will exceed state target by 4% for SSIP

feeder pattern high schools

LT Outcome: Schools throughout the

state have the opportunity to see Safe

How many schools within a region visit demonstration

sites?

20 site visits by other schools by 2018

Page 129: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

and Civil Schools practices

implemented at the demonstration sites.

Do visiting schools adopt SSIP practices following

site visits?

3-5 schools adopt practices by 2018; 10

schools by 2020

Page 130: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

3. Key Strand of Action: Create a system and culture for supporting students with disabilities, teachers, and administrators through

implementation science practices.

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

Output: SSIP demonstration sites are

selected.

Was at least one demonstration site identified for each

region?

15 demonstration sites total in 2016-2017

(12 middle school + 3 high school)

Output: PD offered to middle and high

school demonstration sites regarding

implementation science and

instructional coaching.

How many instructional staff and administrators have

completed the implementation and coaching PD?

35 teachers and administrators by 2016-

2017 and 40 by 2019-2020

Were the teachers/administrators satisfied with the

PD?

80% of those trained reported satisfaction

Output: PD offered to middle school

demonstration sites regarding mapping

the schedule.

How many instructional staff and administrators have

completed the mapping the schedule PD?

50 teachers and administrators by 2019-

2020

Were the teachers/administrators satisfied with the

PD?

80% of those trained reported satisfaction

Output: Coaches were provided to all

of the demonstration sites to work with

district and building administrators

regarding the implementation of SSIP

initiatives.

Did the ALSDE hire SSIP Coaches for each of the

demonstration sites?

1 coach/region

Were the SSIP Coaches trained to provide coaching

and information to demonstration sites?

100% of the coaches receive PD

Were the SSIP Coaches satisfied with the PD?

80% of those trained report satisfaction

Short-Term Outcome: Demonstration

sites formed and utilized School

Implementation Teams.

Were School Implementation Teams formed for SSIP

work?

One team/site

Did the SSIP School Implementation Teams meet at

least three times/year?

3 times/year

Page 131: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

What changes occurred as a result of the Teams? Evidence of changes in policy, staff,

resource, practices

ST Outcome: Demonstration sites

implement the mapping the schedule

PD to develop schedules for meeting

the needs of SWD.

Were schedules developed for sites who attended the

Mapping the Schedule PD?

70% of sites implemented the Mapping the

Schedule system by 2017-2018

Are teachers and administrators satisfied with the

system of scheduling?

80% report satisfaction

Are there any barriers to implementing the system of

scheduling?

Reports of barriers

ST Outcome: Teachers and

administrators have a greater

awareness of implementation science

and instructional coaching.

Do teachers and administrators report a greater

awareness of implementation science and instructional

coaching?

70% report greater awareness

ST Outcome: SSIP Coaches and

demonstration site administrators

collaborate to implement SSIP

initiatives.

How much coaching did SSIP sites receive from an

SSIP coach?

At least 40 hours of coaching/site

Were teachers and administrators satisfied with the

coaching they received?

80% report satisfaction

Do teachers and administrators report learning new

skills as a result of the coaching?

75% report new skills

ST Outcome: SSIP demonstration sites

and their schools have resources and

protocols established for demonstration

site visitors.

Do SSIP demonstration sites have resources and

protocols established for site visitors?

Once determined to be demonstration

ready, all sites have evidence of resources

about implementation practices, schedules

for visitors, sign-in sheets, comment

forms, etc.

Do SSIP demonstration sites use the protocols they

have established for site visitors?

100% of demonstration sites hosting

visitors use established protocols for

school visitors.

Page 132: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

Intermediate Outcome: Teachers in

demonstration sites report a greater

understanding of how the SSIP

initiatives complement each other to

create better outcomes for SWD.

Do teachers in demonstration sites report more

awareness and understanding about the SSIP

initiatives?

70% of teachers report higher levels of

understanding

Are teachers who attended SSIP PD satisfied with the

SSIP project in their schools?

75% report satisfaction

Intermed. Outcome: Teachers work

with demonstration site administrators

to implement the new approach to

scheduling.

Do teachers have buy-in to the new approach to

scheduling?

70% report satisfaction with scheduling

process in 2017-2018, and 75% by 2020

Were teachers informed about the new approach to

scheduling?

75% report they were informed

Intermed. Outcome: Teachers collect

data for the SSIP, including student-

and teacher-level data, and use the

results to make adjustments to

instruction.

Did teachers collect SSIP data (e.g., progress

monitoring assessments, CHAMPS/Foundations data,

transition implementation data, etc.)?

Evidence of data collection

How did teachers use the SSIP data to adapt

instruction or classroom practices?

60% of teachers use data

Intermed. Outcome: Teachers model

and share ideas with other teachers

observing the demonstration site.

How do teachers at demonstration sites model and

share ideas with observing teachers?

Evidence of collaboration with observing

teachers

Long-Term Outcome: By 2020,

teachers, building administrators,

district administrators, and parents

report better communication and

greater collaboration.

What percentage of teachers, administrators, and

parents reported better communication among each

other?

70% report greater communication on

Collaboration Survey by 2020

What percentage of teachers, administrators, and

parents reported more collaboration among each

other?

70% report more collaboration on

Collaboration Survey by 2020

LT Outcome: Schools throughout the

state have the opportunity to see co-

teaching/co-planning, Safe and Civil

Schools practices, and transition

practices implemented at the

demonstration sites.

How many schools within a region visit demonstration

sites?

20 site visits by other schools by 2018

Do visiting schools adopt SSIP practices following

site visits?

3-5 schools adopt practices by 2018; 10

schools by 2020

Page 133: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

4. Key Strand of Action: Create and publicize a model of comprehensive, research-based transition services for high school students with

disabilities through the development of transition demonstration sites.

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

Output: The ALSDE has identified

three SSIP high school demonstration

sites, with at least one site added per

year.

Were at least three demonstration sites identified, with

an additional site added each year?

3 demonstration sites by 2016-2017

6 demonstration sites total by 2020

Output: The ALSDE-SES has offered

PD, coaching, and resources to high

school demonstration sites regarding

implementing a transition class for

SWD.

How many instructional staff and administrators have

completed the transition PD?

12 teachers by 2016-2017 and 24 teachers

by 2019-2020

Were the teachers/administrators satisfied with the

PD?

80% of those trained reported satisfaction

Did the Transition class teachers receive coaching

following PD?

100% of teachers

Do teachers/administrators demonstrate learning of

the transition content following the PD?

70% score 80% or higher on post-

assessment

Output: The ALSDE-SES provided high

school demonstration sites The

Transitions Curriculum for

implementing in transition classes.

Was the Transition Curriculum purchased for

demonstration sites?

100% of sites

Output: The ALSDE-SES offered PD

and coaching to high school

demonstration sites regarding

community-based vocational

instruction (CBVI) and establishing job

site connections for SWD.

How many instructional staff and administrators have

completed the transition PD?

12 teachers by 2016-2017 and 24 teachers

by 2019-2020

Were the teachers/administrators satisfied with the

PD?

80% of those trained reported satisfaction

Did the PD participants receive coaching following

PD?

50% of teacher were coached

Output: The ALSDE-SES partnered

with the Alabama SPDG and the

Did the ALSDE, AL PTI, and the AL SPDG

collaborate?

Review of documentation

Page 134: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

Alabama PTI to provide new secondary

transition resources for parents.

Did the partners provide at least two new transition-

specific resources for parents each year?

Two resources/year

Short-Term Outcome: LEAs of the

demonstration sites have the

leadership, staff, and policies to

support the implementation of

transition practices, as measured on

the Installation Checklist.

What changes have occurred in staffing, policies, and

administration as a result of SSIP participation?

Evidence of changes following

participation.

Do demonstration sites score higher on the Installation

Checklist each year?

50% “In-progress” by the end of the 2016-

2017 year, with a 10% increase each

subsequent year.

ST Outcome: Demonstration sites offer

a credit-bearing transition class for

SWD and design student schedules for

students in the Life Skills Pathway to

attend the class.

Did sites offer a Transition class? One class/site

Were students in the Life Skills Pathway enrolled in

the class?

20 students

Were student schedules arranged for students to

participate in the Transitions class?

Review of documentation

ST Outcome: Transition demonstration

sites ensure all special education

teachers receive professional

development regarding transition and

preparing for post-school outcomes.

Have special education teachers received PD on

transition and preparing for post-school outcomes?

65% of high school special education

teachers in demonstration sites participate

Were the teachers satisfied with the PD?

80% of those trained report satisfaction

How did the teachers report using the information

from the PD?

Reports of usage of information

ST Outcome: LEAs for the

demonstration sites establish and foster

new community partnerships for

vocational instruction.

How many new vocational sites were established? 3/demonstration site

Were students placed in those sites? 2/demonstration site

Are community partners satisfied with the

partnership?

80% report satisfaction

Page 135: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

ST Outcome: Demonstration sites have

developed protocols and resources for

schools within the region who visit the

transition demonstration site.

Do SSIP demonstration sites have resources and

protocols established for site visitors?

Once determined to be demonstration

ready, all sites have evidence of resources

about implementation practices, schedules

for visitors, sign-in sheets, comment

forms, etc.

Do SSIP demonstration sites use the protocols they

have established for site visitors?

100% of demonstration sites hosting

visitors use established protocols for

school visitors.

Intermediate Outcome: Teachers

developed a transition course,

including The Transitions Curriculum,

that addresses the areas of students’

IEP goals.

Did teachers develop a Transition Course that embeds

The Transition Curriculum?

1 class/demonstration site

Do the activities of the class reflect the student IEP

goals?

Review of goals with Transitions

curriculum

Intermed. Outcome: Teachers identify

and use appropriate vocational and

interest assessments for SWD that

guide IEP planning.

Did teachers identify appropriate assessments for

SWD?

Electronic file of various assessments

created

Did teachers use appropriate assessments for SWD to

guide IEP planning?

Review of a sample of student IEPs

Intermed. Outcome: Teachers work

with families of SWD regarding

transition in a collaborative

relationship.

Do parents report more collaboration with teachers

related to transition?

10% increase in interview/focus group

rating by 2018

Do teachers and parents report better collaboration? 60% report satisfaction with collaboration

Intermed. Outcome: Teachers and

administrators assist in the placement

of SWD in appropriate in-school and

community-based vocational settings,

and provide support.

Were SWD in demonstration sites placed in

community-based vocational settings?

30 students by 2017-2018

How did teachers and administrators support SWD in

their community-based vocational settings?

Review of Student Transition Survey

results

Intermed. Outcome: Teachers model

and share ideas with other teachers

observing the demonstration site.

How do teachers at demonstration sites model and

share ideas with observing teachers?

Evidence of collaboration with observing

teachers

Page 136: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

Intermed. Outcome: SWD have the

knowledge and skills to assist with

post-secondary planning.

Do students have the knowledge and skills to assist

with post-secondary planning?

60% of Transitions class students have

70% or higher on the Student Transition

Survey

Are there areas where SWD need more assistance

with post-secondary planning?

Review of Student Transition Survey

results

Intermed. Outcome: A greater

percentage of high school SWD

participate in their IEP meetings.

Are a greater percentage of SWD in the demonstration

sites participating in their IEP meetings?

2% increase/year, beginning in 2016-2017

Are SWD who attend their IEP meetings satisfied

with their participation?

70% are satisfied with participation

LT Outcome: By 2020, the graduation

rate among SWD in the demonstration

sites is at least 78.94%.

What percentage of SWD from the SSIP high school

feeder patterns graduated by 2020?

Will exceed state target by 3% for SSIP

feeder pattern high schools

What percentage of SWD from the SSIP high school

feeder patterns dropped out by 2020?

Will exceed state target by 1.8% for SSIP

feeder pattern high schools

LT Outcome: By 2020, a higher

percentage of SWD in the

demonstration sites enroll in post-

secondary education or find

competitive employment after

graduation.

What percentage of SWD from the SSIP high school

feeder patterns were enrolled in post-secondary

education by 2020?

Will exceed state target by 3% for SSIP

feeder pattern high schools

What percentage of SWD from the SSIP high school

feeder patterns were competitively employed by

2020?

Will exceed state target by 4% for SSIP

feeder pattern high schools

LT Outcome: Schools throughout the

state have the opportunity to see co-

teaching/co-planning implemented at

the demonstration sites.

How many schools within a region visit demonstration

sites?

20 site visits by other schools by 2018

Do visiting schools adopt SSIP practices following

site visits?

3-5 schools adopt practices by 2018

Page 137: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

5. Key Strand of Action: Collaborate with transition groups to coordinate the statewide transition infrastructure and strengthen the delivery of

transition services from state to student.

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

Output: The Alabama Post-School

Outcomes Survey schedule is revised to

collect data biannually.

By 2017, was the Alabama Post-School Outcomes

Survey schedule revised to collect data biannually?

Revision of data collection schedule

Output: The ALSDE and AL PTI

provides technical assistance and

information to teachers and parents

regarding transition best practices.

How many teachers and parents have completed

transition PD?

40 teachers and parents by 2016-2017 and

75 teachers by 2019-2020

Were teachers and parents satisfied with the

TA/information?

80% of those trained reported satisfaction

What percentage of parents and teachers requested

follow-up information after the initial

TA/information?

Review of requests

Output: The ALSDE entered into a

collaborative partnership with national

TA Centers regarding transition.

Did the ALSDE-SES and national secondary

transition center partners meet?

Meet at least 2 times/year

Short-Term Outcome: LEAs administer

the Alabama Post-School Outcomes

Survey biannually.

By 2018, was the Alabama Post-School Outcomes

Survey collected biannually?

LEAs administer APSO survey every

other year

Are there any barriers to administering the survey

more frequently?

Review of barriers

ST Outcome: Parents and teachers

review transition modules and

information and have greater

awareness about transition best

practices.

How many teachers and parents participated in the

transition modules?

30 participants by 2016-2017, 70 by 2020

Were participants satisfied with the transition modules

and information?

80% report satisfaction

How have parents and teachers used the information

from the transition modules and information?

60% report using the information, review

of usage

Page 138: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

ST Outcome: Administrators and

teachers compare transition best

practices with existing district

practices and develop a plan to address

needed policies, programming, and

resources.

Did teachers and administrators compare transition

best practices with existing district practices?

100% of demonstration sites

Was a plan developed to address needed policies,

programming, and resources?

Review of plans

ST Outcome: Transition partners

collaborate to develop a coordinated

statewide infrastructure for transition,

including secondary transition policies,

transition information on the IEP, and

best practices regarding transition.

Did state transition partners meet at least twice a year

to share activities related secondary transition?

Meetings 2 times/year

What changes occurred as a result of these meetings? Review of meeting minutes

Intermediate Outcome: LEA

administrators receive consistent and

coordinated information about

transition from the ALSDE and share

the information with teachers and

building administrators.

Do LEAs report better communication regarding

secondary transition expectations from the state?

50% of LEAs report better communication

by 2017-2018, with a 5% increase in

subsequent years

Intermed. Outcome: Teachers engage

with parents in discussions regarding

secondary transition practices and

assessments.

Do parents report more collaboration with teachers

related to transition?

10% increase in interview/focus group

rating by 2018

Do teachers and parents report better collaboration? 60% report satisfaction with collaboration

Intermed. Outcome: Teachers report a

greater awareness of state policies and

practices regarding secondary

transition and use the information for

IEP development and transition

planning with students.

What percentage of surveyed special education

teachers report a greater awareness of state policies

and practices regarding transition?

70% report more awareness

What percentage of surveyed teachers report using the

information from the AL SSIP to assist SWD?

60% of teachers use information

Long-Term Outcome: The ALSDE and

LEAs use the Alabama Post-School

Have LEAs conducted further analyses of the

Alabama Post-School Outcomes Survey results?

Review of interviews

Page 139: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

Outcomes Survey results to modify or

create new transition programming

and practices.

How have the ALSDE and LEAs used the results of

the Alabama Post-School Outcomes Survey to modify

programs and practices?

Review of interviews

LT Outcome: Students, parents,

teachers, and district administrators

report greater communication and

collaboration regarding secondary

transition practices and planning.

What percentage of students, teachers, administrators,

and parents reported better communication among

each other?

70% report greater communication on

Collaboration Survey by 2020; 60% of

Student Transition Survey

What percentage of students, teachers, administrators,

and parents reported more collaboration among each

other?

70% report more collaboration on

Collaboration Survey by 2020; 60% of

Student Transition Survey

LT Outcome: State parent involvement

rates increase 2% by 2020.

Has the state’s parent involvement rate increased by

2%?

2% increase by 2020

LT Outcome: IEPs of a sample of SWD

reflect the skills, assessments, and

goals of the student.

Was a sample of transition-aged student IEPs

reviewed and compared with student survey/interview

results?

25 students randomly selected

What percentage of IEPs reflected the skills,

assessments, and goals of the student?

75% of IEPs match student goals

LT Outcome: By 2020, a higher

percentage of SWD in the

demonstration sites enroll in post-

secondary education or find

competitive employment after

graduation.

What percentage of SWD from the SSIP high school

feeder patterns were enrolled in post-secondary

education by 2020?

Will exceed state target by 3% for SSIP

feeder pattern high schools

What percentage of SWD from the SSIP high school

feeder patterns were competitively employed by

2020?

Will exceed state target by 4% for SSIP

feeder pattern high schools

LT Outcome: Transition partners at the

state level report greater collaboration

for transition discussions and planning.

How many schools within a region visit demonstration

sites?

20 site visits by other schools by 2018

Do visiting schools adopt SSIP practices following

site visits?

3-5 schools adopt practices by 2018

Page 140: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

6. Key Strand of Action: Manage project activities based on the implementation science practices of selection, training, coaching,

data/evaluation, and systemic improvement.

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

Output: Instructional coaches are hired

for each SSIP demonstration site, and a

supervisor for the coaches is identified.

Were job descriptions drafted for instructional

coaching positions?

Job description created

Was at least one instructional coach hired for each

SSIP demonstration sites?

1 coach/demonstration site

Was a supervisor for the coaches identified? Supervisor identified

Output: The ALSDE provides SSIP

demonstration sites with financial

resources and oversees fiscal

management.

Did SSIP demonstration sites receive financial

resources from the ALSDE?

13 contracts for SSIP sites awarded

Were stipulations on the fiscal management

communicated to the demonstration sites that are

aligned with EDGAR and ALSDE regulations?

Review of contracts

Did the ALSDE oversee the financial awards?

Annual budget for SSIP expenditures

Output: The ALSDE manages the

collection of evaluation data and

reviews the results at least biannually.

Are evaluation data collected each year as outlined in

the evaluation plan?

Evaluation data, as outlined in plan

Are the evaluation data reviewed at least twice/year?

2 times/year

Output: All of the SSIP Implementation

Teams conduct an analysis of the local

infrastructure needs and weaknesses.

Were SSIP Implementation Teams formed? 1 SSIP Implementation Team/LEA for

demonstration site

Did the SSIP Implementation Teams conduct an

analysis of the local infrastructure?

SSIP Implementation Team minutes

Was an SSIP Professional Learning Community

formed?

PLC formed

Page 141: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

Output: A Professional Learning

Community is established to reflect on

the demonstration site implementation.

Did the SSIP Professional Learning Community meet

at least 8 times/year?

8 meetings/year

Short-Term Outcome: The leadership,

staff, and policies in place to support

the implementation of co-teaching/co-

planning, Safe and Civil Schools

practices, and secondary transition

programs.

What changes have occurred in staffing, policies, and

administration as a result of SSIP participation?

Evidence of changes following

participation.

Do demonstration sites score higher on the Installation

Checklist each year?

50% “In-progress” by the end of the 2016-

2017 year, with a 10% increase each

subsequent year.

ST Outcome: Demonstration site

schools have protocols and resources

for schools within the region who visit

the demonstration sites.

Do SSIP demonstration sites have resources and

protocols established for site visitors?

Once determined to be demonstration

ready, all sites have evidence of resources

about implementation practices, schedules

for visitors, sign-in sheets, comment

forms, etc.

Do SSIP demonstration sites use the protocols they

have established for site visitors?

100% of demonstration sites hosting

visitors use established protocols for

school visitors.

ST Outcome: Demonstration sites use

financial resources from the ALSDE to

procure staff time, consultants, and

materials, and incorporates the

expenditures into school and district

programming.

Did demonstration sites create budgets for SSIP

funds?

1 budget/site

Were the SSIP funds spent on staff time, consultants,

and materials, as needed?

Review of budgets

How were the expenditures used in school and district

programming?

Installation Checklist scores and review of

budget

ST Outcome: LEAs collect data for the

SSIP sites, and review data,

observations, and evaluation findings

to make mid-course corrections.

Were data collected by the SSIP sites, as outlined in

the evaluation plan?

Evaluation data for each SSIP site

Were data, observation results, and evaluation

findings reviewed at least annually?

SSIP Implementation Team minutes

Page 142: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

ST Outcome: With coaches,

demonstration sites create a plan to

address infrastructure weaknesses and

needed priorities.

Were plans created for each demonstration site to

address weaknesses and priorities?

1 plan/demonstration site

ST Outcome: Demonstration site

teachers and administrators present at

meetings and/or state conferences on

the implementation of evidence-based

practices.

How many times did demonstration site staff present

at meetings or conferences?

At least 2 presentations/year, beginning in

2016-2017

Where did staff present, and what types of participants

attended the meetings/conferences?

List of meetings/conferences and audience

type

How many people attended the presentation? Count of audience members or sign-in

sheet

Intermed. Outcome: Teachers in

demonstration sites will implement the

evidenced-based co-teaching/co-

planning, behavior, and evidence-

based transition practices.

Did teachers in the demonstration sites implement the

SSIP content with fidelity?

70% of participating teachers implemented

80% of the core components with fidelity

How many students are in classes with teachers

implementing SSIP initiatives?

Count of students

Intermed. Outcome: Teachers will host

visitors from other districts within the

region to view the implementation of

the SSIP practices.

How many visitors observed SSIP practices in

demonstration sites?

40 visitors (at least 20 site visits) by 2018

How do teachers at demonstration sites share ideas

with observing teachers?

Evidence of collaboration with observing

teachers

Intermed. Outcome: Teachers utilize

materials purchased to implement the

SSIP initiatives in the classroom.

Did teachers use the materials purchased with SSIP

funds?

Alabama Stakeholder Survey

Have student outcomes improved as a result of

teachers using the materials purchased?

Interview of sample of teachers

Were data collected by the SSIP demonstration site

teachers, as outlined in the evaluation plan?

Evaluation data for each SSIP site

Page 143: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

Intermed. Outcome: Teachers collect,

review, and utilize student-level and

teacher-level data.

Were data, observation results, and evaluation

findings reviewed at least annually?

Interview of a sample of teachers

Intermed. Outcome: Teachers and

administrators implement the LEA’s

plan for addressing infrastructure

weaknesses.

Did teachers and administrators implement the LEA

improvement plan?

Installation Checklist results for each SSIP

demonstration site

What was the impact of the implementation of the

plans?

Review of SSIP Implementation Team

minutes; Interviews with sample of

teachers and administrators

Long-Term Outcome: Teachers,

administrators, district administrators,

and parents are satisfied with the AL

SSIP implementation.

Were teachers, administrators, and parents involved in

the AL SSIP satisfied with the implementation and

activities?

75% report satisfaction by 2020

What areas of the AL SSIP were stakeholders and

school staff the least satisfied?

AL SSIP Stakeholder Survey results

Long-Term Outcome: SWD in

demonstration site schools show higher

reading and math achievement levels

compared to their own baseline levels.

Are SWD in co-taught classrooms demonstrating

progress on the reading and math ACT Aspire

assessment?

45% show increases on Aspire by 2020

Do certain disability subgroups show more growth on

the assessment?

Comparison of subgroups

How does the growth curve for SWD compare to

students without disabilities in the same schools?

Comparison of SWD and SWOD

Long-Term Outcome: By 2020, the

graduation rate among SWD in the

demonstration sites is at least 78.94%.

What percentage of SWD from the SSIP high school

feeder patterns graduated by 2020?

Will exceed state target by 3% for SSIP

feeder pattern high schools

What percentage of SWD from the SSIP high school

feeder patterns dropped out by 2020?

Will exceed state target by 1.8% for SSIP

feeder pattern high schools

LT Outcome: By 2020, a higher

percentage of SWD in the

demonstration sites enroll in post-

What percentage of SWD from the SSIP high school

feeder patterns were enrolled in post-secondary

education by 2020?

Will exceed state target by 3% for SSIP

feeder pattern high schools

Page 144: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

secondary education or find

competitive employment after

graduation.

What percentage of SWD from the SSIP high school

feeder patterns were competitively employed by

2020?

Will exceed state target by 4% for SSIP

feeder pattern high schools

LT Outcome: Schools throughout the

state have the opportunity to see co-

teaching/co-planning implemented at

the demonstration sites.

How many schools within a region visit demonstration

sites?

20 site visits by other schools by 2018

Do visiting schools adopt SSIP practices following

site visits?

3-5 schools adopt practices by 2018

Page 145: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

7. Key Strand of Action: Engage parents and stakeholders in training, information sharing, and feedback for program improvement.

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

Output: The ALSDE-SES convenes at

least four meetings for different

stakeholder groups per year to solicit

contributions and feedback for SSIP

program improvement.

Were four stakeholder meetings convened each year? 4 meetings/year

Which type of stakeholder participated in the

meetings?

Review of meeting attendees, by category

Output: The ALSDE-SES collaborates

with the AL PTI around development

and dissemination of relevant

resources for parents and other

stakeholders related to evidence-based

practices, including transition services.

Did the ALSDE and the AL PTI collaborate regarding

the development of materials?

Review of documentation

Did the partners provide at least two new transition-

specific resources for parents each year?

Two resources/year

Output: With the AL PTI, the ALSDE-

SES convenes parent focus groups

and/or interviews to solicit feedback

and perceptions about progress of the

SSIIP related to parent concerns,

including transition information and

resources.

How many parents participated in focus

groups/interviews?

25 parents/year

Were the participating parents representative of

Alabama parents of SWD?

List of attendees by region, age of SWD,

type of disability

Short-Term Outcome: Demonstration

sites have participation among district

and community stakeholders in SSIP

planning and feedback.

How many parent and community stakeholders

participated in SSIP planning and feedback?

At least 2 parents or stakeholders/

demonstration site

How were parents and community stakeholders

involved in the SSIP demonstration site planning and

feedback?

Review of SSIP Implementation Team

minutes

ST Outcome: Demonstration sites

assist the ALSDE and AL PTI with the

dissemination of resources and

information for parents and other

Did demonstration sites disseminate resources and

information to parents and other stakeholders?

Information or resources disseminated to

250 parents/stakeholders

What types of information was disseminated? Review of materials disseminated

Page 146: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

stakeholders related to AL SSIP

practices.

Were stakeholders satisfied with the

information/resources?

80% reported satisfaction

How do stakeholders report using the information and

resources?

Parent focus groups/interviews; AL SSIP

Stakeholder Survey results

Intermediate Outcome: Parents report

increased awareness of SSIP practices,

including transition, and evaluation

data for those sites.

Did parents in demonstration sites report greater

awareness of SSIP practices and data?

Increase in AL SSIP Stakeholder Survey

results

Are parents satisfied with the SSIP practices? 75% report satisfaction

Intermed. Outcome: Parents

participate in AL PTI training and

receive resources that will assist them

in helping their children make

successful secondary transitions.

Did parents participate in AL PTI training on

secondary transition?

75 parents attend training by 2018

Were stakeholders satisfied with the PD? 80% reported satisfaction

How do parents report using the information from the

PD?

Parent focus groups/interviews; AL SSIP

Stakeholder Survey results

Intermed. Outcome: Parents

participate in parent focus

groups/interviews and offer ideas and

feedback regarding program

improvement at the state and district

levels, materials developed for parents

of SWD, and needed resources and

training related to transition.

Did focus group/interview parents offer ideas

regarding program improvements, materials

developed for parents, and needed resources and

training?

Focus group/interview results

How did the ALSDE-SES use the information from

the focus groups/interviews for program

improvement?

Interviews with ALSDE-SES staff

Long-Term Outcome: A higher

percentage of parents report having

increased awareness and skills related

to helping their child make a successful

secondary transition.

Have more parents reported having increased

awareness and skills for helping their child make a

successful secondary transition?

Increase on 1 to 5 scale in parent focus

groups/interviews by 2020

How have parents used the information to help their

child make a successful secondary transition?

Parent focus group/interviews

Page 147: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Outputs/Outcomes Evaluation Question Performance Indicator

LT Outcome: There is a higher rate of

parent involvement.

Has the state’s parent involvement rate increased by

2%?

2% increase by 2020

Are there regions where the parent involvement rate is

higher or lower?

Review of parent involvement analyses

LT Outcome: More parents at SSIP

sites are satisfied with the programs

and services related to transition at the

school, district, and the ALSDE-SES.

Are more parents satisfied with the transition

programs and services from the school over time?

Increased percentage on 1 to 5 scale by

2020

Are more parents satisfied with the transition

programs and services from the district over time?

Increased percentage on 1 to 5 scale by

2020

Are more parents satisfied with the transition

programs and services from the ALSDE-SES over

time?

Increased percentage on 1 to 5 scale by

2020

LT Outcome: There is a greater

collaboration among community

partners, parents, and the ALSDE-SES.

What percentage of community partners, ALSDE-SES

staff, and parents reported better communication

among each other?

70% report greater communication on

Collaboration Survey by 2020

What percentage of community partners, ALSDE-SES

staff, and parents reported more collaboration among

each other?

70% report more collaboration on

Collaboration Survey by 2020

Page 148: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Appendix VI

AL SSIP Evaluation Plan

Page 149: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

AL SSIP Evaluation Plan

Evaluation Questions Performance Measure Data Collection Method Person(s)

Responsible Timeline

Was at least one middle school

demonstration site identified for

each region for co-teaching/co-

planning?

10 demonstration sites by

Feb. 2016

12 demonstration sites total

in 2016-2017

Review of list of demonstration

sites

T. Farmer Feb. 2016,

annually

How many instructional staff and

administrators have completed

the co-teaching/co-planning PD?

48 teachers by 2016-2017

and 72 teachers by 2019-

2020

Count of participants on sign-in

sheets, tracked in PD Database

P. Howard, D.

Ploessl

Quarterly

Did the teachers/administrators

complete at least 8 hours of PD

on co-teaching/co-planning?

75% of those trained

received at least 8 hours of

PD

Review of PD offered and length of

PD, obtained through CARS

reporting

P. Howard, D.

Ploessl

Quarterly

Were the teachers/administrators

satisfied with the PD?

80% of those trained

reported satisfaction

80% “Agree” or “Strongly Agree’

regarding PD satisfaction on Post-

Event Survey

External Evaluator Following PD

Do teachers/administrators

demonstrate learning of the co-

teaching/co-planning content

following the PD?

70% score 80% or higher on

post-assessment

Co-Teaching Post-Event

Assessment score for PD attendees

P. Howard, D.

Ploessl

Following PD

Did the ALSDE-SES, AMSTI,

and ARI communicate and

collaborate regarding the SSIP

activities?

Collaboration Survey results

show “Communication”

level or higher

AL SSIP Collaboration Survey

comparison of results for

“Communication” item

S. Williamson,

External Evaluator

Twice/year

Was PD offered regarding

reading and/or math instruction

to teachers at SSIP

demonstration sites?

50% of co-teachers receive

PD through coaches, ARI, or

AMSTI

AL SSIP Collaboration Survey

comparison of results for

“Collaboration” item

S. Williamson,

External Evaluator

Twice/year

Were the teachers satisfied with

the PD?

80% of those trained report

satisfaction

80% “Agree” or “Strongly Agree’

regarding PD satisfaction on Post-

Event Survey

External Evaluator Following PD

Page 150: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Evaluation Questions Performance Measure Data Collection Method Person(s)

Responsible Timeline

What changes have occurred in

staffing, policies, and

administration as a result of SSIP

participation?

Evidence of changes

following participation.

Review of Implementation Team

minutes; Interviews with

demonstration site administrators

External Evaluator Annually

Do demonstration sites score

higher on the Installation

Checklist each year?

50% “In-progress” by the

end of the 2016-2017 year,

with a 10% increase each

subsequent year.

Complete Installation Checklist and

review percent “In Progress”

SSIP Coaches &

SSIP

Implementation

Teams

Annually

Have teachers received

instructional coaching on co-

teaching/co-planning following

PD?

At least 33 teachers receive

instructional coaching for

co-teaching/co-planning by

2016-2017

AL SSIP Coaching Activity Log

coaching records by teacher

SSIP Coaches Monthly

Are teachers satisfied with the

instructional coaching they have

received?

80% report satisfaction Coaching participants complete

Coaching Evaluation Survey

J. Cooledge Twice/year

Can 70% of teachers

demonstrate co-teaching and co-

planning with fidelity using the

Co-Teaching/Co-Planning

Observation Form?

70% of co-teaching teachers

can demonstrate 80% of the

core components by 2020.

Completion of Co-Teaching

Observation Form and Co-Planning

Observation Form twice/year;

Score of 80% or higher on

components; 20% fidelity check by

external consultants

Co-teaching dyads,

P. Howard, T.

Farmer, J. Cooledge

Assess

twice/year;

Fidelity check

in spring each

year

Do teachers and administrators

report a greater understanding of

ACT Aspire and progress

monitoring data for SWD each

year?

5% increase each year Teachers and administrators

complete AL SSIP Stakeholder

Survey; Interviews with a sample

of demonstration site teachers

Teachers & admins

in demonstration

sties; External

Evaluator

Annually

How do teachers and

administrators report using

student achievement data for

SWD?

Reports of data usage Interviews with a sample of

demonstration site teachers

External Evaluator Annually

Page 151: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Evaluation Questions Performance Measure Data Collection Method Person(s)

Responsible Timeline

Do SSIP demonstration sites

have resources and protocols

established for site visitors?

Once determined to be

demonstration ready, all

sites have evidence of

resources and protocols

Review of resources about

implementation practices,

schedules for visitors, sign-in

sheets, comment forms, etc.

SSIP Coaches 2016-2017

Do SSIP demonstration sites use

the protocols they have

established for site visitors?

100% of demonstration sites

hosting visitors use

established protocols for

school visitors.

Review of resources and protocols,

including sign-in sheets and

schedules

SSIP Coaches Annually

Do general and special education

co-teaching dyads report greater

collaboration in a Collaboration

Survey?

60% of teachers report

higher levels of

collaboration

AL SSIP Collaboration Survey

comparison of results for

“Collaboration” item

SSIP Coaches;

External Evaluator

Twice/year

Do co-teaching dyads co-plan

together?

Co-teaching dyads co-plan

at least once/week

Review of sample of Co-Planning

Forms and co-planning records

SSIP Coaches Monthly

Do co-teaching dyads report

satisfaction with the co-planning

process?

75% report satisfaction for

co-planning

AL SSIP Stakeholder Survey

results show “Agree” or “Strongly

Agree”

External Evaluator Annually

Do general and special education

co-teaching dyads demonstrate

developing specialized

instruction for SWD on the Co-

Planning Form?

50% by the end of 2016-

2017, with a 10% increase

each subsequent year

Completion of Co-Teaching

Observation Form and Co-Planning

Observation Form twice/year;

Score of 80% or higher on

components; 20% fidelity check by

external consultants

Co-teaching dyads,

P. Howard, T.

Farmer, J. Cooledge

Assess

twice/year;

Fidelity check

in spring each

year

Have general and special

education co-teaching dyads

offered individualized instruction

for SWD?

70% of co-teaching teachers

can demonstrate 80% of the

core components by 2020.

Completion of Co-Teaching

Observation Form and Co-Planning

Observation Form twice/year;

Score of 80% or higher on

components; 20% fidelity check by

external consultants

Co-teaching dyads,

P. Howard, T.

Farmer, J. Cooledge

Assess

twice/year;

Fidelity check

in spring each

year

Page 152: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Evaluation Questions Performance Measure Data Collection Method Person(s)

Responsible Timeline

How many SWD receive

individualized instruction in the

co-taught classrooms?

223 students by 2018 Count of SWD on classroom

rosters

Co-teaching dyads Annually

Are students in the co-taught

classroom engaged in the

instruction?

85% of students are

observed as engaged in

instruction

Completion of Co-Teaching

Observation Form and Co-Planning

Observation Form

SSIP Coaches, P.

Howard, T. Farmer,

J. Cooledge

Twice/year

Do co-teaching dyads report

satisfaction with the co-teaching

process?

75% report satisfaction for

co-teaching

Teachers and administrators

complete AL SSIP Stakeholder

Survey; Interviews with a sample

of demonstration site teachers

Teachers & admins

in demonstration

sties; External

Evaluator

Annually

Do co-teaching dyads assess

SWD on a progress monitoring

assessment at least three

times/year?

80% of teachers assess SWD

3x/year

Analysis of progress monitoring

scores for co-taught classes

Data Assistant;

External Evaluator

Two

times/year

Have co-teaching dyads utilized

the progress monitoring results

for SWD to adapt instruction?

60% of teachers use data Interviews with a sample of

teachers

External Evaluator Annually

How do teachers at

demonstration sites model and

share ideas with observing

teachers?

Evidence of collaboration

with observing teachers

Interviews with a sample of

teachers; Observation Comment

Card analysis

External Evaluator;

SSIP Coaches

Annually

Are SWD in co-taught

classrooms demonstrating

progress on reading and math

progress monitoring and ACT

Aspire assessments over a year?

45% show increases on

progress monitoring; 40%

show increases on Aspire

over a year, beginning in

2016-2017

Analysis of progress monitoring

and ACT Aspire data

Data Assistant;

External Evaluator

Twice/year for

PM and

Annually for

ASPIRE

Do certain disability subgroups

show more growth on progress

monitoring assessments over a

year?

Comparison of subgroups Analysis of progress monitoring

and ACT Aspire data

Data Assistant;

External Evaluator

Twice/year for

PM and

Annually for

ASPIRE

Page 153: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Evaluation Questions Performance Measure Data Collection Method Person(s)

Responsible Timeline

How does the growth curve for

SWD compare to students

without disabilities in the same

co-taught classroom?

Comparison of SWD and

SWOD

Analysis of progress monitoring

and ACT Aspire data

Data Assistant;

External Evaluator

Twice/year for

PM and

Annually for

ASPIRE

Did the achievement gap on

progress monitoring and ACT

Aspire between SWD and

SWOD decrease in co-taught

classrooms?

5 percentage points gap by

2016-2017, decreasing to 3

percentage points by 2020

Analysis of progress monitoring

and ACT Aspire data

Data Assistant;

External Evaluator

Twice/year for

PM and

Annually for

ASPIRE

Do certain disability subgroups

show more growth on progress

monitoring assessments over a

year?

Comparison of subgroups Analysis of progress monitoring

and ACT Aspire data

Data Assistant;

External Evaluator

Twice/year for

PM and

Annually for

ASPIRE

Is the achievement gap between

SWD and SWOD less in co-

taught classrooms compared to

non- co-taught classrooms?

Comparison of co-taught

classrooms and non- co-

taught classrooms

Analysis of progress monitoring

and ACT Aspire data; Obtain

sample of non-co-taught class data

Data Assistant;

External Evaluator

Annually

What percentage of SWD from

the SSIP high school feeder

patterns graduated by 2020?

Will exceed

state target by 3% for SSIP

feeder pattern high schools

Review of APR data for state and

high school

E. Dickson Annually

What percentage of SWD from

the SSIP high school feeder

patterns dropped out by 2020?

Will exceed state target by

1.8% for SSIP feeder pattern

high schools

Review of APR data for state and

high school

E. Dickson Annually

What percentage of SWD from

the SSIP high school feeder

patterns were enrolled in post-

secondary education by 2020?

Will exceed state target by

3% for SSIP feeder pattern

high schools

Review of APR data for state and

high school

E. Dickson Annually

What percentage of SWD from

the SSIP high school feeder

patterns were competitively

employed by 2020?

Will exceed state target by

4% for SSIP feeder pattern

high schools

Review of APR data for state and

high school

E. Dickson Annually

Page 154: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Evaluation Questions Performance Measure Data Collection Method Person(s)

Responsible Timeline

How many schools within a

region visit demonstration sites?

20 site visits by other

schools by 2018

Count of visits among

demonstration site sign-in sheets

SSIP Coaches Twice/year

Do visiting schools adopt SSIP

practices following site visits?

3-5 schools adopt practices

by 2018; 10 schools by 2020

Survey with follow-up interviews

for visiting schools

External Evaluator Annually

Was at least one middle school

demonstration site identified for

each region for addressing

behavior outcomes?

10 demonstration sites by

Feb. 2016

12 demonstration sites total

in 2016-2017

Review of list of demonstration

sites

T. Farmer Annually

How many instructional staff and

administrators have completed

the CHAMPS and/or

Foundations PD?

144 teachers by 2016-2017

and 160 teachers by 2019-

2020

Count of participants on sign-in

sheets, tracked in PD Database

Data Assistant Quarterly

Were the teachers/administrators

satisfied with the PD?

80% of those trained

reported satisfaction

80% “Agree” or “Strongly Agree’

regarding PD satisfaction on Post-

Event Survey

External Evaluator Following PD

Do teachers/administrators

demonstrate learning of the

CHAMPS/Foundations content

following the PD?

70% score 75% or higher on

post-assessment

Post-Event Assessment score for

PD attendees

L. Hamilton Following PD

Were Foundations Teams

established?

1 team/ Foundations school List of members of Foundations

Teams

SSIP Coaches Annually

Did Foundations Teams use data

to establish expectations for

behavior?

List of expectations for each

Foundations school

Review of Foundation Team logs SSIP Coaches, P.

Howard, T. Farmer,

J. Cooledge

Annually

Have teachers received

instructional coaching on

At least 125 teachers receive

instructional coaching for

AL SSIP Coaching Activity Log

coaching records by teacher

SSIP Coaches Monthly

Page 155: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Evaluation Questions Performance Measure Data Collection Method Person(s)

Responsible Timeline

CHAMPS and/or Foundations

following PD?

CHAMPS and/or

Foundations by 2016-2017

Are teachers satisfied with the

instructional coaching they have

received?

80% report satisfaction Coaching participants complete

Coaching Evaluation Survey

J. Cooledge Twice/year

Can 70% of teachers

demonstrate CHAMPS with

fidelity using the Co-

Teaching/Co-Planning

Observation Form?

70% of teachers can

demonstrate 80% of the core

components by 2020

Completion of STOIC internally;

external fidelity check with

CHAMPS Fidelity Form for 20%

of teachers

Teachers

implementing

CHAMPS; P.

Howard, L.

Hamilton, T.

Sanders

Twice/year,

Fidelity

once/year

Do 70% of Foundations schools

demonstrate fidelity using the

Foundations Rubric?

70% of Foundations schools

can demonstrate 80% of the

core components by 2020

Completion of Foundations Rubric

internally; external fidelity check

with Foundations Rubric for 20%

of sites

Foundations Teams;

P. Howard, L.

Hamilton, T.

Sanders, T. Farmer

Twice/year,

Fidelity

once/year

Do teachers and administrators

in Foundations schools report a

greater understanding of the Safe

and Civil Schools Survey

results?

75% report greater

awareness

SSIP Stakeholder Survey results J. Cooledge Annually

How do teachers and

administrators report using Safe

and Civil Schools Survey data?

Reports of data usage Anecdotal reports; Interviews with

a sample of teachers

SSIP Coaches, J.

Cooledge

Ongoing

Did Foundations schools

complete follow-up observations

and data collection, as outlined

in the Foundations Rubric?

75% of Foundations schools

complete Foundations

Rubric each year, beginning

in 2016-2017

Completion of Foundations Rubric

internally; external fidelity check

with Foundations Rubric for 20%

of sites

Foundations Teams;

P. Howard, L.

Hamilton, T.

Sanders, T. Farmer

Annually

Do teachers implementing

CHAMPS establish classroom

expectations?

75% of teachers set

expectations

Observed using STOIC; External

check of 20%

SSIP Coaches,

Teachers using

CHAMPS; P.

Howard, L.

Annually

Page 156: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Evaluation Questions Performance Measure Data Collection Method Person(s)

Responsible Timeline

Hamilton, T.

Sanders

Are students in classrooms

implementing CHAMPS aware

of the classroom expectations?

75% on STOIC Observed using STOIC; External

check of 20%

SSIP Coaches,

Teachers using

CHAMPS; P.

Howard, L.

Hamilton, T.

Sanders

Annually

Are students aware of

expectations for Foundations?

70% of Foundations schools

demonstrate fidelity

Completion of Foundations Rubric Foundations Team Annually

How many classes and schools

are implementing CHAMPS and

Foundations?

25 classes implementing

CHAMPS

8 sites implementing

Foundations

Count of SWD on classroom

rosters

Teachers, SSIP

Coaches

Annually

Are teachers implementing

CHAMPS, as indicated on the

CHAMPS Fidelity Form?

70% of teachers meet 80%

of the components

Self-assessment using CHAMPS

Fidelity Form by teachers; 20%

external check

SSIP Coaches,

Teachers using

CHAMPS; P.

Howard, L.

Hamilton, T.

Sanders

Twice/year,

Fidelity

once/year

Are teachers implementing

Foundations?

Evidence of implementation

using the Foundations

Rubric

Self-assessment using Foundations

Rubric by Foundations Teams;

20% external check

SSIP Coaches,

Foundations Teams;

P. Howard, L.

Hamilton, T.

Farmer, T. Sanders

Twice/year,

Fidelity

once/year

Are teachers satisfied with the

Safe and Civil Schools practices?

75% report satisfaction with

SCS

SSIP Stakeholder Survey results

indicate “Agree” or “Strongly

Agree”

J. Cooledge Annually

Are more students learning in a

safe and civil environment?

At least 2500 students are

learning in a safe and civil

environment; increase in

Count of students in participating

schools; Safe and Civil Schools

Survey results

SSIP Coaches; Safe

& Civil Schools

Annually;

Biannually

Page 157: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Evaluation Questions Performance Measure Data Collection Method Person(s)

Responsible Timeline

Safe and Civil Schools

Survey results

What are barriers to

implementing the Safe and Civil

Schools practices?

Qualitative results of

interviews

Interviews with a sample of

teachers

J. Cooledge Annually

Do teachers have more

instructional time/student

compared to baseline?

3% increase in attendance

over baseline, observed

instructional time; decrease

in tardies over baseline

Observation of instructional time

for a sample of teachers;

Comparison of school attendance

and tardy data

SSIP Coaches; SSIP

Implementation

Teams

Twice/year

Do SWD have fewer ODRs, ISS,

OSS, and expulsions in

demonstration site schools than

before the implementation of

Safe and Civil Schools

programs?

2% decrease in 2016-2017,

and 4.5% by 2020

Review of ODR, ISS, OSS, and

expulsion data for demonstration

sites

E. Dickson,

Prevention &

Support

Annually

Do certain disability subgroups

have more referrals or

suspensions over a year?

Comparison of subgroups Review of ODR, ISS, OSS, and

expulsion data for demonstration

sites

J. Cooledge Annually

How do the referrals and

suspension data for SWD

compare to students without

disabilities in the same school?

Comparison of SWD and

SWOD

Review of ODR, ISS, OSS, and

expulsion data for demonstration

sites

J. Cooledge Annually

Has attendance improved

following Foundations

implementation?

6% increase in 2016-2017,

and 9% by 2020

Comparison of attendance data in

Foundations schools

SSIP

Implementation

Teams

Twice/year

Are there fewer tardies following

Foundations implementation?

8% decrease in 2016-2017,

and 10% by 2020

Comparison of tardy data in

Foundations schools

SSIP

Implementation

Teams

Twice/year

Do SWD report greater

satisfaction with their school and

7% increase in satisfaction

by 2020

Safe and Civil Schools Survey

results

Safe & Civil

Schools

2016 and 2019

Page 158: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Evaluation Questions Performance Measure Data Collection Method Person(s)

Responsible Timeline

classes on the Safe and Civil

Schools Survey?

Are students more satisfied with

the safety of their schools, as

measured on the Safe and Civil

Schools Survey?

5% increase in safety scores

by 2020

Safe and Civil Schools Survey

results

Safe & Civil

Schools

2016 and 2019

Is there a decrease in discrepancy

scores between teachers, parents,

and students regarding school

safety?

5% reduction in discrepancy

scores by 2020

Safe and Civil Schools Survey

results

Safe & Civil

Schools

2016 and 2019

How many instructional staff and

administrators have completed

the implementation science and

instructional coaching PD?

35 teachers and

administrators by 2016-2017

and 40 by 2019-2020

Count of participants on sign-in

sheets, tracked in PD Database

T. Farmer Quarterly

How many instructional staff and

administrators have completed

the mapping the schedule PD?

50 teachers and

administrators by 2019-2020

Count of participants on sign-in

sheets, tracked in PD Database

T. Farmer Quarterly

Did the ALSDE hire SSIP

Coaches for each of the

demonstration sites?

1 coach/region Review of contracts T. Farmer Annually

Were the SSIP Coaches trained

to provide coaching and

information to demonstration

sites?

100% of the coaches receive

PD

List of PD with sign-in sheets P. Howard Twice/year

Were the SSIP Coaches satisfied

with the PD?

80% of those trained report

satisfaction

80% “Agree” or “Strongly Agree’

regarding PD satisfaction on Post-

Event Survey

J. Cooledge Following PD

Were SSIP Implementation

Teams formed for SSIP work?

One team/site List of members of Implementation

Teams

SSIP Coaches Annually

Page 159: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Evaluation Questions Performance Measure Data Collection Method Person(s)

Responsible Timeline

Did the SSIP School

Implementation Teams meet at

least three times/year?

3 times/year Review of minutes of SSIP

Implementation meetings

SSIP Coaches Twice/year

Were schedules developed for

sites who attended the Mapping

the Schedule PD?

70% of sites implemented

the Mapping the Schedule

system by 2017-2018

Survey of PD participants J. Cooledge Annually

Are teachers and administrators

satisfied with the system of

scheduling?

80% report satisfaction Survey of PD participants J. Cooledge Annually

Are there any barriers to

implementing the system of

scheduling?

Reports of barriers Survey of PD participants J. Cooledge Annually

Do teachers and administrators

report a greater awareness of

implementation science and

instructional coaching?

70% report greater

awareness

AL SSIP Stakeholder Survey

results

J. Cooledge Annually

How much coaching did SSIP

sites receive from an SSIP

coach?

At least 40 hours of

coaching/site

AL SSIP Activity Log data SSIP Coaches Monthly

Were teachers and administrators

satisfied with the coaching they

received?

80% report satisfaction Analysis of the SSIP Coaching

Survey

J. Cooledge Twice/year

Do teachers and administrators

report learning new skills as a

result of the coaching?

75% report new skills Analysis of the SSIP Coaching

Survey

J. Cooledge Twice/year

Do teachers in demonstration

sites report more awareness and

understanding about the SSIP

initiatives?

70% of teachers report

higher levels of

understanding

AL SSIP Stakeholder Survey

results

J. Cooledge Annually

Page 160: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Evaluation Questions Performance Measure Data Collection Method Person(s)

Responsible Timeline

Are teachers who attended SSIP

PD satisfied with the SSIP

project in their schools?

75% report satisfaction AL SSIP Stakeholder Survey

results

J. Cooledge Annually

Do teachers have buy-in to the

new approach to scheduling?

70% report satisfaction with

scheduling process in 2017-

2018, and 75% by 2020

Survey of PD participants J. Cooledge Annually

Were teachers informed about

the new approach to scheduling?

75% report they were

informed

Survey of PD participants J. Cooledge Annually

Did teachers collect SSIP data

(e.g., progress monitoring

assessments,

CHAMPS/Foundations data,

transition implementation data,

etc.)?

Evidence of data collection Analysis of progress monitoring,

CHAMPS/Foundations, and

transition implementation data

J. Cooledge Annually

How did teachers use the SSIP

data to adapt instruction or

classroom practices?

60% of teachers use data AL SSIP Stakeholder Survey

results

J. Cooledge Annually

What percentage of teachers,

administrators, and parents

reported better communication

among each other?

70% report greater

communication on

Collaboration Survey by

2020

AL SSIP Collaboration Survey

comparison of results for

“Communication” item

J. Cooledge Annually

What percentage of teachers,

administrators, and parents

reported more collaboration

among each other?

70% report more

collaboration on

Collaboration Survey by

2020

AL SSIP Collaboration Survey

comparison of results for

“Collaboration” item

J. Cooledge Annually

Were at least three transition

demonstration sites identified,

with an additional site added

each year?

3 demonstration sites by

2016-2017

6 demonstration sites total

by 2020

Review of list of demonstration

sites

C. Gage Annually

Page 161: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Evaluation Questions Performance Measure Data Collection Method Person(s)

Responsible Timeline

How many instructional staff and

administrators have completed

the transition PD?

12 teachers by 2016-2017

and 24 teachers by 2019-

2020

List of PD with sign-in sheets C. Gage Following PD

Did the Transition class teachers

receive coaching following PD?

100% of teachers AL SSIP Activity Log data SSIP Coaches Monthly

Was the Transition Curriculum

purchased for demonstration

sites?

100% of sites Review of purchases C. Gage Annually

How many instructional staff and

administrators have completed

the transition PD?

12 teachers by 2016-2017

and 24 teachers by 2019-

2020

List of PD with sign-in sheets C. Gage Following PD

Did the PD participants receive

coaching following PD?

50% of teacher were

coached

AL SSIP Activity Log data SSIP Coaches Monthly

Did the ALSDE, AL PTI, and

the AL SPDG collaborate?

Review of documentation Review of meeting minutes S. Williamson Twice/year

Did the partners provide at least

two new transition-specific

resources for parents each year?

Two resources/year List of resources J. Winters Annually

Did sites offer a Transition class? One class/site Schedule of class times reviewed SSIP Coaches Annually

Were students in the Life Skills

Pathway enrolled in the class?

20 students List of students enrolled in

Transition class

SSIP Coaches Annually

Were student schedules arranged

for students to participate in the

Transitions class?

Review of documentation List of students enrolled in

Transition class; Interview with

administrators

SSIP Coaches, J.

Cooledge

Annually

Have special education teachers

received PD on transition and

preparing for post-school

outcomes?

65% of high school special

education teachers in

demonstration sites

participate

List of PD with sign-in sheets SSIP Coaches Annually

Page 162: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Evaluation Questions Performance Measure Data Collection Method Person(s)

Responsible Timeline

How many new vocational sites

were established?

3/demonstration site Review of list of sites Transition contact

for district

Annually

Were students placed in those

sites?

2/demonstration site Review of list of students placed in

sites

Transition contact

for district

Annually

Are community partners satisfied

with the partnership?

80% report satisfaction AL SSIP Stakeholder Survey

results

J. Cooledge Annually

Do the activities of the class

reflect the student IEP goals?

Review of goals with

Transitions curriculum

Review of a sample of IEP goals

with Transitions curriculum

SSIP Coaches Annually

Did teachers identify appropriate

assessments for SWD?

Electronic file of various

assessments created

Electronic file of assessments

observed

SSIP Coaches Annually

Did teachers use appropriate

assessments for SWD to guide

IEP planning?

Review of a sample of

student IEPs

Review of IEPs for a sample of

students in demonstration sites

K. Green, C. Gage Twice/year

Do parents report more

collaboration with teachers

related to transition?

10% increase in

interview/focus group rating

by 2018

Review of IEPs for a sample of

students in demonstration sites;

Interviews with students

K. Green, C. Gage Twice/year

Do teachers and parents report

better collaboration?

60% report satisfaction with

collaboration

AL SSIP Collaboration Survey for

sample of parents and teachers in

demonstration sites

J. Cooledge Annually

Were SWD in demonstration

sites placed in community-based

vocational settings?

30 students by 2017-2018 Review of list of students placed in

sites

Transition contact

for district

Annually

How did teachers and

administrators support SWD in

their community-based

vocational settings?

Review of Student

Transition Survey results

Analysis of Student Transition

Survey

Teachers of

Transition class; J.

Cooledge

Twice/year

Do students have the knowledge

and skills to assist with post-

secondary planning?

60% of Transitions class

students have 70% or higher

on the Student Transition

Survey

Analysis of Student Transition

Survey

Teachers of

Transition class; J.

Cooledge

Twice/year

Page 163: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Evaluation Questions Performance Measure Data Collection Method Person(s)

Responsible Timeline

Are there areas where SWD need

more assistance with post-

secondary planning?

Review of Student

Transition Survey results

Analysis of Student Transition

Survey

Teachers of

Transition class; J.

Cooledge

Twice/year

Are a greater percentage of SWD

in the demonstration sites

participating in their IEP

meetings?

2% increase/year, beginning

in 2016-2017

Analysis of participation in IEP

meetings

Transition contact

for district

Annually

Are SWD who attend their IEP

meetings satisfied with their

participation?

70% are satisfied with

participation

Analysis of Student Transition

Survey

Teachers of

Transition class; J.

Cooledge

Twice/year

By 2017, was the Alabama Post-

School Outcomes Survey

schedule revised to collect data

biannually?

Revision of data collection

schedule

Review of revised schedule E. Dickson 2017

How many teachers and parents

have completed transition PD?

40 teachers and parents by

2016-2017 and 75 teachers

by 2019-2020

List of PD and sign-in sheets J. Winters, C. Gage Following PD

Were teachers and parents

satisfied with the

TA/information?

80% of those trained report

satisfaction

80% “Agree” or “Strongly Agree’

regarding PD satisfaction on Post-

Event Survey

J. Winters, J.

Cooledge

Following PD

What percentage of parents and

teachers requested follow-up

information after the initial

TA/information?

Review of requests Log of parent requests to the AL

PTI

J. Winters Annually

Did the ALSDE-SES and

national secondary transition

center partners meet?

Meet at least 2 times/year Review of meeting minutes S. Williamson Twice/year

Page 164: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Evaluation Questions Performance Measure Data Collection Method Person(s)

Responsible Timeline

By 2018, was the Alabama Post-

School Outcomes Survey

collected biannually?

LEAs administer AL Post-

School Outcomes survey

every other year

Analysis of LEA’s Post-School

Outcomes results

E. Dickson Annually,

beginning in

2018

Are there any barriers to

administering the survey more

frequently?

Review of barriers Survey of administrators J. Cooledge Annually,

beginning in

2018

How many teachers and parents

participated in the transition

modules?

30 participants by 2016-

2017, 70 by 2020

List of module participants C. Gage Twice/year

Were participants satisfied with

the transition modules and

information?

80% report satisfaction End of Event Survey of module

participants

J. Cooledge Following PD

How have parents and teachers

used the information from the

transition modules and

information?

60% report using the

information, review of usage

Follow-up End of Event Survey of

module participants

J. Cooledge Twice/year

Did teachers and administrators

compare transition best practices

with existing district practices?

100% of demonstration sites Review of SSIP Implementation

Team minutes

SSIP Coaches Annually

Was a plan developed to address

needed policies, programming,

and resources?

Review of plans Review of SSIP Implementation

Team minutes

SSIP Coaches Annually

Did state transition partners meet

at least twice a year to share

activities related secondary

transition?

Meetings 2 times/year Review of transition partner

meeting minutes

S. Williamson Twice/year

What changes occurred as a

result of these meetings?

Review of meeting minutes Review of transition partner

meeting minutes

S. Williamson Twice/year

Do LEAs report better

communication regarding

50% of LEAs report better

communication by 2017-

Survey of a sample of Special

Education Coordinators

J. Cooledge Annually

Page 165: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Evaluation Questions Performance Measure Data Collection Method Person(s)

Responsible Timeline

secondary transition expectations

from the state?

2018, with a 5% increase in

subsequent years

Do parents report more

collaboration with teachers

related to transition?

10% increase in

interview/focus group rating

by 2018

Interview/focus group data analyses J. Cooledge Annually

Do teachers and parents report

better collaboration?

60% report satisfaction with

collaboration

Interview/focus group data

analyses; AL SSIP Stakeholder

Survey results

J. Cooledge Annually

What percentage of surveyed

special education teachers report

a greater awareness of state

policies and practices regarding

transition?

70% report more awareness AL SSIP Stakeholder Survey

results

J. Cooledge Annually

What percentage of surveyed

teachers report using the

information from the AL SSIP to

assist SWD?

60% of teachers use

information

AL SSIP Stakeholder Survey

results

J. Cooledge Annually

How have the ALSDE and LEAs

used the results of the Alabama

Post-School Outcomes Survey to

modify programs and practices?

40% have used results by

2020

Survey of a sample of Special

Education Coordinators

J. Cooledge Annually,

beginning in

2018

What percentage of students,

teachers, administrators, and

parents reported better

communication among each

other?

70% report greater

communication on

Collaboration Survey by

2020; 60% of Student

Transition Survey

AL SSIP Collaboration Survey

comparison of results for

“Communication” item

J. Cooledge Annually

What percentage of students,

teachers, administrators, and

parents reported more

collaboration among each other?

70% report more

collaboration on

Collaboration Survey by

2020; 60% of Student

Transition Survey

AL SSIP Collaboration Survey

comparison of results for

“Collaboration” item

J. Cooledge Annually

Page 166: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Evaluation Questions Performance Measure Data Collection Method Person(s)

Responsible Timeline

Has the state’s parent

involvement rate increased by

2%?

2% increase by 2020 Review of APR data E. Dickson Annually

Was a sample of transition-aged

student IEPs reviewed and

compared with student

survey/interview results?

25 students randomly

selected

Review of IEPs for a sample of

students in demonstration sites

K. Green, C. Gage Twice/year

What percentage of IEPs

reflected the skills, assessments,

and goals of the student?

75% of IEPs match student

goals

Review of IEPs for a sample of

students in demonstration sites;

Interviews with students

K. Green, C. Gage Twice/year

Were job descriptions drafted for

instructional coaching positions?

Job description created Job descriptions T. Farmer Annually

Was at least one instructional

coach hired for each SSIP

demonstration site?

1 coach/demonstration site Contract with SSIP Coaches T. Farmer Annually

Was a supervisor for the coaches

identified?

Supervisor identified Supervisor identified S. Williamson Annually

Did SSIP demonstration sites

receive financial resources from

the ALSDE?

13 contracts for SSIP sites

awarded

Contracts awarded to SSIP sties T. Farmer Annually

Were stipulations on the fiscal

management communicated to

the demonstration sites that are

aligned with EDGAR and

ALSDE regulations?

Review of contracts Review of contracts T. Farmer, S.

Williamson

Annually

Did the ALSDE oversee the

financial awards?

Annual budget for SSIP

expenditures

Review of expenditures ALSDE Accounting

Office, T. Farmer

Ongoing

Are evaluation data collected

each year as outlined in the

evaluation plan?

Evaluation data, as outlined

in plan

Evaluation data compared to

evaluation plan

J. Cooledge Monthly

Page 167: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Evaluation Questions Performance Measure Data Collection Method Person(s)

Responsible Timeline

Are the evaluation data reviewed

at least twice/year?

2 times/year Review of Evaluation Team

minutes

J. Cooledge Twice/year

Did the SSIP Implementation

Teams conduct an analysis of the

local infrastructure?

SSIP Implementation Team

minutes

SSIP Implementation Team

minutes reviewed

SSIP Coaches, J.

Cooledge

Annually

Was an SSIP Professional

Learning Community formed?

PLC formed Review of PLC minutes P. Howard 2016

Did the SSIP Professional

Learning Community meet at

least 8 times/year?

8 meetings/year Review of PLC minutes P. Howard Quarterly

Did demonstration sites create

budgets for SSIP funds?

1 budget/site Budgets for each SSIP site T. Farmer Annually

Were the SSIP funds spent on

staff time, consultants, and

materials, as needed?

Review of budgets Review of budgets for each SSIP

site

T. Farmer Ongoing

How were the expenditures used

in school and district

programming?

Installation Checklist scores

and review of budget

Results of Installation Checklist P. Howard Annually

Were data collected by the SSIP

sites, as outlined in the

evaluation plan?

Evaluation data for each

SSIP site

Evaluation data shared with

External Evaluator and SSIP Coach

SSIP

Implementation

Teams

Quarterly

Were data, observation results,

and evaluation findings reviewed

at least annually?

SSIP Implementation Team

minutes

Review of SSIP Implementation

Team minutes

SSIP

Implementation

Teams, SSIP Coach

Annually

Were plans created for each

demonstration site to address

weaknesses and priorities?

1 plan/demonstration site Review of plans for each

demonstration site

SSIP Coaches Annually

How many times did

demonstration site staff present

at meetings or conferences?

At least 2 presentations/year,

beginning in 2016-2017

List of presentations K. Green, S.

Williamson

Annually

Page 168: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Evaluation Questions Performance Measure Data Collection Method Person(s)

Responsible Timeline

Where did staff present, and

what types of participants

attended the

meetings/conferences?

List of meetings/conferences

and audience type

Description of presentations K. Green, S.

Williamson

Annually

How many people attended the

presentation?

Count of audience members

or sign-in sheet

Count of audience or sign-in sheets

for presentations

K. Green, S.

Williamson

Annually

How many students are in

classes with teachers

implementing SSIP initiatives?

Count of students Count of students in classes and

schools implementing SSIP

initiatives

SSIP Coaches Annually

Did teachers use the materials

purchased with SSIP funds?

Alabama Stakeholder

Survey

Analysis of AL SSIP Stakeholder

Survey

J. Cooledge Annually

Have student outcomes improved

as a result of teachers using the

materials purchased?

Interview of sample of

teachers

Interviews with a sample of

teachers

J. Cooledge Annually

Did teachers and administrators

implement the LEA

improvement plan?

Installation Checklist results

for each SSIP demonstration

site

Installation Checklist completed for

SSIP sites

P. Howard Annually

What was the impact of the

implementation of the plans?

Review of SSIP

Implementation Team

minutes; Interviews with

sample of teachers and

administrators

Review of SSIP Implementation

Team minutes; Interviews with

sample of teachers and

administrators

SSIP

Implementation

Team, J. Cooledge

Annually

Were teachers, administrators,

and parents involved in the AL

SSIP satisfied with the

implementation and activities?

75% report satisfaction by

2020

Analysis of AL SSIP Stakeholder

Survey

J. Cooledge Annually

What areas of the AL SSIP were

stakeholders and school staff the

least satisfied?

AL SSIP Stakeholder

Survey results

Analysis of AL SSIP Stakeholder

Survey

J. Cooledge Annually

Page 169: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Evaluation Questions Performance Measure Data Collection Method Person(s)

Responsible Timeline

Were four stakeholder meetings

convened each year?

4 meetings/year List of meetings S. Williamson Annually

Which type of stakeholder

participated in the meetings?

Review of meeting

attendees, by category

Sign-in sheets for each meeting S. Williamson Following

meeting

Did the ALSDE and the AL PTI

collaborate regarding the

development of materials?

Review of documentation Review of meeting minutes S. Williamson Twice/year

Did the partners provide at least

two new transition-specific

resources for parents each year?

Two resources/year Review of resources J. Winters, J.

Cooledge

Annually

How many parents participated

in focus groups/interviews?

25 parents/year Count of Parent Focus

Group/interview participants

J. Cooledge Annually

Were the participating parents

representative of Alabama

parents of SWD?

List of attendees by region,

age of SWD, type of

disability

Analysis of Parent Focus

Group/interview participant data

J. Cooledge Annually

How many parent and

community stakeholders

participated in SSIP planning

and feedback?

At least 2 parents or

stakeholders/ demonstration

site

List of SSIP Implementation Team

members; Review of

Implementation Team meeting

minutes

SSIP Coaches Twice/year

How were parents and

community stakeholders

involved in the SSIP

demonstration site planning and

feedback?

Review of SSIP

Implementation Team

minutes

Review of Implementation Team

meeting minutes

J. Cooledge Annually

Did demonstration sites

disseminate resources and

Information or resources

disseminated to 250

parents/stakeholders

Count of information disseminated

by demonstration sites

SSIP

Implementation

Teams

Twice/year

Page 170: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Evaluation Questions Performance Measure Data Collection Method Person(s)

Responsible Timeline

information to parents and other

stakeholders?

What types of information was

disseminated?

Review of materials

disseminated

Log of information disseminated by

demonstration sites

SSIP

Implementation

Teams

Twice/year

Were stakeholders satisfied with

the information/resources?

80% reported satisfaction AL SSIP Stakeholder Survey

results

J. Cooledge Annually

How do stakeholders report

using the information and

resources?

Parent focus

groups/interviews; AL SSIP

Stakeholder Survey results

Analysis of Parent Focus

Group/interview data; AL SSIP

Stakeholder Survey analysis of

parents who attended SSIP PD

J. Cooledge Annually

Did parents in demonstration

sites report greater awareness of

SSIP practices and data?

Increase in AL SSIP

Stakeholder Survey results

AL SSIP Stakeholder Survey

results

J. Cooledge Annually

Are parents satisfied with the

SSIP practices?

75% report satisfaction AL SSIP Stakeholder Survey

results

J. Cooledge Annually

Did parents participate in AL

PTI training on secondary

transition?

75 parents attend training by

2018

List of PD and sign-in sheets J. Winters Twice/year

Were stakeholders satisfied with

the PD?

80% reported satisfaction AL SSIP Stakeholder Survey

results

J. Cooledge Annually

How do parents report using the

information from the PD?

Parent focus

groups/interviews; AL SSIP

Stakeholder Survey results

Analysis of Parent Focus

Group/interview data; AL SSIP

Stakeholder Survey analysis of

parents who attended SSIP PD

J. Cooledge Annually

Did focus group/interview

parents offer ideas regarding

program improvements,

materials developed for parents,

Focus group/interview

results

Analysis of Parent Focus

Group/interview data

J. Cooledge Annually

Page 171: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Evaluation Questions Performance Measure Data Collection Method Person(s)

Responsible Timeline

and needed resources and

training?

How did the ALSDE-SES use

the information from the focus

groups/interviews for program

improvement?

Interviews with ALSDE-

SES staff

Interviews with ALSDE-SES staff J. Cooledge Annually

Have more parents reported

having increased awareness and

skills for helping their child

make a successful secondary

transition?

Increase on 1 to 5 scale in

parent focus

groups/interviews by 2020

Analysis of Parent Focus

Group/interview data

J. Cooledge Annually

How have parents used the

information to help their child

make a successful secondary

transition?

Parent focus

group/interviews

Analysis of Parent Focus

Group/interview data

J. Cooledge Annually

Are there regions where the

parent involvement rate is higher

or lower?

Review of parent

involvement analyses

Review of APR data E. Dickson Annually

Are more parents satisfied with

the transition programs and

services from the school over

time?

Increased percentage on 1 to

5 scale by 2020

Analysis of Parent Focus

Group/interview data

J. Cooledge Annually

Are more parents satisfied with

the transition programs and

services from the district over

time?

Increased percentage on 1 to

5 scale by 2020

Analysis of Parent Focus

Group/interview data

J. Cooledge Annually

Are more parents satisfied with

the transition programs and

services from the ALSDE-SES

over time?

Increased percentage on 1 to

5 scale by 2020

Analysis of Parent Focus

Group/interview data

J. Cooledge Annually

Page 172: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Evaluation Questions Performance Measure Data Collection Method Person(s)

Responsible Timeline

What percentage of community

partners, ALSDE-SES staff, and

parents reported better

communication among each

other?

70% report greater

communication on

Collaboration Survey by

2020

AL SSIP Collaboration Survey

comparison of results for

“Communication” item

J. Cooledge Annually

What percentage of community

partners, ALSDE-SES staff, and

parents reported more

collaboration among each other?

70% report more

collaboration on

Collaboration Survey by

2020

AL SSIP Collaboration Survey

comparison of results for

“Collaboration” item

J. Cooledge Annually

Page 173: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Appendix VII

AL SSIP Forms, Surveys, and Tools

Page 174: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Center Street Consulting, 2012

AL SSIP Collaboration Assessment Survey

Five Levels of Collaboration and Their Characteristics:

Networking 1

Cooperation 2

Coordination 3

Coalition 4

Collaboration 5

• Aware of organization

• Loosely defined roles

• Little communication

• All decisions are made independently

• Provide information to each other

• Somewhat defined roles

• Formal communication

• All decisions are made independently

• Share information and resources

• Defined roles • Frequent

communication • Some shared

decision making

• Share ideas • Share resources • Frequent and

prioritized communication

• All members have a vote in decision making

• Members belong to one system

• Frequent communication is characterized by mutual trust

• Consensus is reached on all decisions

Frey, B.B., Lohmeier, J.H., Lee, S.W., & Tollefson, N. (2006). Measuring collaboration among grant partners. American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 27 (3), 383-392. The above Level of Collaboration Scale (Frey et. al.) was developed from a review and comparison of various stage approaches to collaboration among groups offered in the literature. Frey’s levels were selected for assessment of the Stern Center-Pesky Center collaboration as they most closely aligned with the goals, purposes and activities of the project, as well as the “Collaborative Data and Action Steps to Date” document (10/18/11). This document outlines critical features of the collaboration necessary for successful implementation of the project’s goals and anticipated outcomes of evidence-based early literacy practices and strategies. Please review the descriptions of different levels of collaboration when responding to the following survey items (adapted from the Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory: Amherst W. Wilder Foundation, 2001. www.wilder.org). Data collected from the survey will serve as a pre-assessment for the Stern-Pesky collaboration. A post-assessment survey and interviews will be administered at the end of the project to be included in the project’s summative report.

Page 175: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Center Street Consulting, 2012

Survey Items

Please rate your agreement with the following statements relative to the current status of the collaboration (e.g., project inception): (Rating scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral/No Opinion, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree)

1. The time is right for this collaborative project.

2. People involved in our collaboration trust one another.

3. I have a lot of respect for the other people involved in this collaboration.

4. My organization will benefit from being involved in this collaboration.

5. People involved in our collaboration are willing to compromise on important aspects of our project.

6. The organizations that belong to our collaborative group invest the right amount of time

in our collaborative efforts.

7. Everyone who is a member of our collaborative group wants this project to succeed.

8. The level of commitment among the collaboration participants is high.

9. When the collaborative group makes major decisions, there is enough time for members to take information back to their organizations to confer with colleagues about what the decision should be.

10. Each of the people who participate in decisions in this collaborative group can speak for

the entire organization they represent, not just a part.

11. There is a lot of flexibility when decisions are made; people are open to discussing different options.

12. People in this collaborative group are open to different approaches to how we can do our

work. They are willing to consider different ways of working.

13. People in this collaborative group have a clear sense of their roles and responsibilities.

14. There is a clear process for making decisions among the partners in this collaboration.

15. This collaborative group has tried to take on the right amount of work at the right pace.

16. We are currently able to keep up with the work necessary to coordinate all the people, organizations, and activities related to this collaborative project.

17. People in this collaboration communicate openly with one another.

Page 176: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Center Street Consulting, 2012

18. I am informed as often as I should be about what goes on in the collaboration.

19. The people who lead this collaborative group communicate well with the members.

20. I have a clear understanding of what our collaboration is trying to accomplish.

21. People in our collaborative group know and understand our goals.

22. People in our collaborative group have established reasonable goals.

23. The people in this collaborative group are dedicated to the idea that we can make this project work.

24. My ideas about what we want to accomplish with this collaboration seem to be the same

as the ideas of our partners.

25. What we are trying to accomplish with our collaborative project would be difficult for any single organization to accomplish by itself.

26. Our collaborative group has adequate funds to do what it wants to accomplish.

27. Our collaborative group has adequate “people power” to do what it wants to accomplish.

28. The people in leadership positions for this collaboration have good skills for working with

other people and organizations.

Page 177: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

© Safe & Civil Schools 19

Page 178: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

© Safe & Civil Schools 20

Page 179: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

© Safe & Civil Schools 21

Page 180: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

© Safe & Civil Schools 22

Page 181: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Teacher(s): School: Date: Observer:

CHAMPS Classroom Observation Form INSTRUCTIONS

Arranging the observation session: The teacher should know the purpose of the observation, understand how the information will be used, know who will conduct it, and help select the time for the visit.

Observing the lesson: Try to sit somewhere that is “out of the way” but where you can still see and hear what is going on in the classroom.

Completing the observation instrument: Some of the observation form may be completed after the actual observation is over. Use the notes from the observation to complete this observation form.

A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Beginning/end time of observation: Beginning: Ending:

2. Length of observation (minutes):

3. Total number of students in class:

B. CHAMPS OBSERVATION (complete only if the classroom is implementing CHAMPS)

Teacher Opportunities to Respond (OTR) Tally GE SE

Teacher General Praises Tally Specific Praises Tally GE SE

Teacher Negative Student -Teacher Interactions (Divide the number of negative interactions

by the number of class minutes including transitions)

GE ______ / _______ = SE Note: Safe & Civil Schools (CHAMPS) expects 95% respectful interactions

Teacher Reference to CHAMPS (e.g., voice levels, rules) GE SE

Student Misbehaviors Tally: Note: Safe & Civil Schools (CHAMPS) expects 95% of behaviors to match posted expectations

Page 182: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Coaching Evaluation Survey

Adapted from the Coaching Evaluation Survey by the Florida PS/RtI Statewide Project — http://floridarti.usf.edu Using the scale below, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the performance of the Project CTG coach you worked with during the 2013-2014 school year. If you worked with more than one coach, please rate the coach you worked with the most. If you have not observed or do not have knowledge of a given behavior, please respond “Not Applicable.”

5 4 3 2 1 N/A Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Somewhat

Disagree Disagree Not Applicable

Rating My Project CTG coach… Communicates clearly. Responds to requests in a timely manner. Builds trust with school staff. Maintains confidentiality. Has positive human relations skills. Has expertise in upper-elementary and/or middle school reading/language arts. Can effectively interpret student and classroom data. Is skilled with using technology. Has expertise in collaborative-teaching methods and strategies. Works effectively with school staff to create a culture of co-teaching/co-planning.

Rating My Project CTG coach and I are equal partners. I have a choice in what and how I learn from my Project CTG coach. I believe that I have an opportunity to express my point of view when talking with

my Project CTG coach. During our discussions, my Project CTG coach spends more time listening than

talking. My Project CTG coach has encouraged me to consider ideas before adopting them. My Project CTG coach encourages me to apply strategies in the classroom as I am

learning them. My Project CTG coach seems interested in learning from me.

Rating I have an established partnership with a Project CTG coach. The Project CTG coach initially observed me teaching. Together, the Project CTG coach and I have set specific, measurable goals. The Project CTG coach explains how strategies will be implemented.

Page 183: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

The Project CTG coach prepares and adapts the strategies to fit the specific needs of my classroom and/or my students.

The Project CTG coach models the strategies so I know how they look when they are effectively implemented.

After working with the Project CTG coach, s/he has observed me initially implementing the strategy.

After an observation, the Project CTG coach and I have reflected on what went well and what could be improved.

The Project CTG coach helps me refine my instructional strategies. .

Page 184: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Center Street Consulting Co-Teaching Observation Form 1

Teacher(s): School: Date: Observer:

Co-Teaching Classroom Observation Form INSTRUCTIONS

Arranging the observation session: The teacher should know the purpose of the observation, understand how the information will be used, know who will conduct it, and help select the time for the visit.

Observing the lesson: Try to sit somewhere that is “out of the way” but where you can still see and hear what is going on in the classroom.

Completing the observation instrument: Some of the observation form may be completed after the actual observation is over. Use the notes from the observation to complete this observation form.

A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Beginning/end time of observation: Beginning: Ending:

2. Length of observation (minutes):

3. Was a co-teacher present during the observation?

Yes No NOTES:

4. Total number of students in class: B. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT & RESOURCES Rate the adequacy of the physical environment for facilitating co-teaching.

1. Room arrangement:

1 2 3 4 5

Inhibited interactions Facilitated interactions among co-teachers among co-teachers

2. Please describe below how the classroom is arranged to accommodate the co-teachers (e.g., arrangement of desks and boards for teachers, work areas for instruction).

C. CO-TEACHING PARITY

1. What models of co-teaching were used? Please list the proportion of time for each model using the time** or code below.

Page 185: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Center Street Consulting Co-Teaching Observation Form 2

CO-TEACHING MODEL BOX Model Frequency Notes

One teaching, one observing

Station teaching

Parallel teaching

Alternative teaching

Teaming

One teaching, one assisting

1) **Use actual time, or if not possible, 2) Use the following codes:

FL=Frequent, longer intervals of time FB=Frequent, brief intervals of time O=Occasional S=Seldom

2. Classroom Culture (adapted from Friend, 2014)

Rate each item using the rubric descriptions for each rating. Please provide comments below each item.

0 The physical space supports

the general education teacher.

1 The physical space supports both teachers, although the

space is not equal.

2 The physical space is designed

to support both teachers equally in the classroom.

Classroom Culture: Parity in Physical Space Score:_____

Only the general teacher’s name is posted in (or outside) classroom; The general teacher is scheduled to teach during a particular time and the specialist is in the classroom irregularly; One teacher has a large desk/chair and the other has a student chair or no desk/chair; Only the general has a space in the classroom for books, materials, etc.

The general’s name is posted in (or outside) classroom, and the specialist’s name is posted temporarily (e.g., whiteboard, projection, etc.); Both teachers are informally scheduled to teach during a particular time; Both teachers have a desk/chair for instruction, but are not equal; Both teachers have a space in the classroom, but the space is not equal (e.g., on a student’s desk, a public shelf, etc.).

Both teachers’ names are posted in (or outside) classroom; Both teachers are formally scheduled to teach during a particular time; The desk/chair used during instruction are about equal; Both teachers have a space in the classroom for books, materials, etc.

Notes: 0

The parity in classroom culture is not considered, or

the general education teacher is the lead role and the

specialist is the support.

1 Both teachers play an active role in the classroom culture, although their roles are not

equal.

2 The classroom culture is

designed so both teachers are viewed as equals in the

classroom.

Page 186: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Center Street Consulting Co-Teaching Observation Form 3

Classroom Culture: Parity in Classroom Roles Score:_____

The general teacher has the lead role in the classroom; Teacher talk time during instruction is largely unequal; Students ask permission from the general teacher; Students direct questions only to the general teacher; Students refer to the specialist as a “helper” or “assistant;” The specialist only works with SWD.

The general has the lead role, although the specialist may have a brief lead role; Teacher talk time during instruction is not equal; The general teacher primarily gives permission; Students direct questions mostly to the general teacher; Students see both teachers as teachers, although not equal; The specialist works primarily with SWD but answers questions from all students during independent practice.

Both teachers take a lead role in the classroom; Teacher talk time during instruction is about equal; Both teachers give permission without checking with the other; Students see both teachers as teachers; Both teachers work with all students.

Notes:

3. Co-teaching Instructional Roles (Friend, 2014) Rate each item using the scale below. List “Not Observed” only for those items that did not occur during the observation period (e.g., addressing behavior issues). Please provide comments for each item.

1 2 3 4 5 9

Not at all Some To a great extent Not Observed

Practice General Ed. Teacher

Specialist Notes

a. Teaching/leading the class

b. Roaming around class providing assistance as needed

c. Completing non-instructional responsibilities

d. Providing individualized support to SWD (note if individual or groups)

e. Handling papers/materials for students

f. Maintaining class routines/timing

g. Addressing behavior issues

h. Leading assessment

NOTES:

Page 187: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Center Street Consulting Co-Teaching Observation Form 4

4. Co-Teaching Instructional Roles—Continued (Friend, 2014) Rate each item using the scale below. List “Not Observed” only for those items that did not occur during the observation period (e.g., addressing behavior issues). Please provide comments for each item.

0 1 2 9 No Yes, somewhat Yes, to a great extent Not Observed

Specialist’s Role Rating Notes Process of learning. Offers students strategies, accommodations, modifications, or other interventions to facilitate learning. May offer specialized instruction or remediation.

Individualization. Focuses on each student’s needs and provides assistance to meet those needs.

Documentation. Provides expertise on documentation for SWD.

Emphasizes mastery vs. coverage. Focuses on ensuring students have a full understand of the content. Pacing is secondary.

*Serves as support to the general teacher. Only reviews concepts taught by the general teacher. Supervises independent practice so the general teacher can directly teach.

NOTES:

5. If students were assessed, which of the following occurred? (Indicate letter): a. The general education teacher led the assessment for all students. b. The specialist teacher led the assessment for all students. c. The general education teacher led the assessment for some students and the specialist led

the assessment for some students. d. The specialist led the assessment for students with a disability/green group. e. Other (Please explain.)

6. Did the general education teacher and specialist communicate during the observation period? Yes No

a. If yes, how did they communicate?

D. ENGAGEMENT

Page 188: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Center Street Consulting Co-Teaching Observation Form 5

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

Students are considered engaged if they are: Students are considered not engaged when: Looking attentively at the teacher and/or other students; Responding to questions; Volunteering responses; Talking to a teacher/peer about assigned material; Providing responses that build on the teachers or other

students’ comments; Showing that they understand ideas and concepts; Not distracted by outside noise or others behavior; Sticking to the task; Highly focused rather than moving around the room; Making progress on the task; Asking for help only when necessary; Talking to others only when necessary.

Talking about nonacademic material (verbal off-task); Walking around the room aimlessly (motor off-task); Calling out (verbal off-task) unless it is considered an

appropriate response style for that classroom; Aimlessly flipping the pages of a book (motor off task); Aimlessly looking around the classroom; Looking at unassigned material; Physically touching another student when not related to an

academic task; Other activity not related to the current activity; Turning around in seat, oriented away from task; Staring out the window—zoned out; Engaging in any other form of off-task behavior.

Instructions: For student engagement, a one minute scan is to be performed by the observer at 15 minute intervals during the instruction. Use the “Student Engagement Box” to record number of students engaged over students present in the class.

Student Engagement Box (number engaged over total students)

Interval Number Engaged Total Students [Leave blank] At 15 min. At 30 min. At 45 min. At 60 min.

NOTES:

TEACHER ENGAGEMENT

Teachers are considered engaged if they are: Teachers are considered not engaged when: Looking attentively at the other teacher and/or other

students; Responding to student questions; Talking to a teacher/peer about assigned material; Providing responses that build on the other teacher’s or

other students’ comments; Showing that they are interested in the student activities

and behaviors; Not distracted by outside noise or others behavior; Highly focused on the ideas and concepts presented; Addressing behavior issues as they arise.

Looking at materials beyond the lesson; Standing/sitting in the room but not interacting with the

teacher and/or students; Participating in other activities not related to the current

activity; Grading papers during instruction; Watching students participate in the lesson (e.g., reading,

taking a test, writing, etc.) but “zoning out;” Engaging in any other form of off-task behavior.

Instructions: For teacher engagement, a one minute scan is to be performed by the observer at 15 minute intervals during the instruction. Use the “Teacher Engagement Box” to record the engagement status for each teacher. Indicate “Yes” if engaged or “No” if not engaged for both the General Teacher and the Specialist.

Teacher Engagement Box

Interval General Teacher Specialist [Leave blank]

Page 189: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Center Street Consulting Co-Teaching Observation Form 6

At 15 min. At 30 min. At 45 min. At 60 min.

NOTES:

E. LESSON DELIVERY

1. Offer a brief description of the lesson (e.g., subject, material covered, assessments conducted).

2. How much time was spent on maintaining control of the class? Not at all A little Some A lot

NOTES:

Page 190: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

© Safe & Civil Schools 19

Page 191: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

© Safe & Civil Schools 20

Page 192: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

© Safe & Civil Schools 21

Page 193: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

© Safe & Civil Schools 22

Page 194: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

DIRECTIONS

The rubric is a relatively quick way for the Foundations Team to self-reflect on the implementation status of each of the modules. If you are just beginning Foundations, you might use this rubric toward the end of your first year of implementation. There-after, work through the rubric each year in the spring and consider using it in mid- to late fall to guide your work during the winter.

Each column—Preparing, Getting Started, Moving Along, and In Place—represents a different implementation status. The text in each row describes what that status looks like for each Foundations presentation. For each presentation, read the four descriptions from left to right. If the statements in the description are true, check the box. Each description assumes that the activities preceding it in the row have been attained. Stop working through the row when you reach a description that you cannot check off because you haven’t implemented those tasks.

Notice that the descriptions for the In Place status include a section about evidence, which suggests where to find objective evidence that the described work is truly in place. If no documentation exists, think about whether the work has really been thor-oughly completed. Throughout Foundations, we recommend archiving all your work so that policies and procedures are not forgotten or lost when staff changes occur.

When you’ve worked through every row, summarize your assessment on the Rubric Summary. If any items are rated as less than In Place, or if it has been more than 3 years since you have done so, work through the Implementation Checklist for that module. Of course, if you know that you need to begin work on a module or presen-tation, you can go directly to the corresponding content.

For Module B, evaluate (separately) the common areas and schoolwide policies that you have implemented—that is, you’ve structured them for success and taught students the behavioral expectations. Use the rows labeled Other for your school’s common areas and schoolwide policies that do not appear on the rubric by default.

Figure 1 shows a summary form completed by an imaginary school in the spring of their second year of Foundations implementation. They have highlighted the check-boxes to create a horizontal bar graph, giving the evaluation an effective visual com-ponent. They’ve done a great job on most of Module A, the common areas they’ve prioritized so far (hallways and cafeteria), and Welcoming New Staff, Students, and Families (C7). They need to work a bit more on staff engagement and unity (A5)

Foundations Implementation Rubric and Summary

© Safe & Civil Schools 8

Page 195: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

and most of Module C, which they began in Year 2. Modules D, E, and F are blank because they plan to work on them in future years.

Figure 1 Sample Foundations Rubric Summary

Additional information about the rubric appears in Module F, Presentation 7, Task 1.

Thanks to Carolyn Novelly and Kathleen Bowles of Duval County Public Schools in Florida. We modeled the Foundations Implementation Rubric on a wonderful document they developed called the School Climate/Conditions for Learning Checklist. Thanks also to Pete Davis of Long Beach, California, for sharing samples of rubrics and innovation configuration scales.

Foundations Implementation Rubric and Summary (p. 8 of 8)

Preparing (1)

Getting Started (2)

Moving Along (3)

In Place(4)

Module A PresentationsA1. Foundations: A Multi-Tiered System of Behavior Support

A2. Team Processes

A3. The Improvement Cycle

A4. Data-Driven Processes

A5. Developing Staff Engagement and Unity

Module B PresentationsHallways

Restrooms

Cafeteria

Playground, Courtyard, or Commons

Arrival

Dismissal

Dress Code

Other:

Other:

Other:

Other:

Module C PresentationsC2. Guidelines for Success

C3. Ratios of Positive Interactions

C4. Improving Attendance

C5 & C6. School Connectedness and Programs and Strategies for Meeting Needs

C7. Welcoming New Staff, Students, and Families

Module D PresentationsD1. Proactive Procedures, Corrective Procedures, and Individual Interventions

D2. Developing Three Levels of Misbehavior

D3. Staff Responsibilities for Responding to Misbehavior

D4. Administrator Responsibilities for Responding to Misbehavior

D5. Preventing the Misbehavior That Leads to Referrals and Suspensions

Module E PresentationsE1. Ensuring a Safe Environment for Students

E2. Attributes of Safe and Unsafe Schools

E3. Teaching Con� ict Resolution

E4. Analyzing Bullying Behaviors, Policies, and School Needs

E5. Schoolwide Bullying Prevention and Intervention

Module F PresentationsF2. Supporting Classroom Behavior: The Three-Legged Stool

F3. Articulating Staff Beliefs and Solidifying Universal Procedures

F4. Early-Stage Interventions for General Education Classrooms

F5. Matching the Intensity of Your Resources to the Intensity of Your Needs

F6. Problem-Solving Processes and Intervention Design

F7. Sustainability and District Support

Date

XXX XX

XXX XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XXX XX

XXX XX

XXX X

X

X

X

XXX X

X

© Safe & Civil Schools 9

Page 196: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Scho

ol N

ame

D

ate

Pre

sen

tati

on 

Pre

par

ing

(1)

Get

tin

g S

tart

ed (

2)M

ovin

g A

lon

g (3

)In

Pla

ce (

4)

A1

Fou

nd

atio

ns:

A

Mu

lti-

Tier

ed S

yste

m

of B

ehav

ior

Su

pp

ort

Staf

f are

aw

are

of th

e

Foundations

app

roac

h an

d ba

sic

belie

fs, i

nclu

ding

that

Foundations

is a

pr

oces

s fo

r gui

ding

the

entir

e st

aff i

n th

e co

nstru

ctio

n an

d im

plem

enta

tion

of a

com

preh

ensi

ve a

ppro

ach

to

beha

vior

sup

port

.

Foundations

mul

ti-tie

red

syst

em

of s

uppo

rt (M

TSS)

pro

cess

es a

re

coor

dina

ted

with

aca

dem

ic M

TSS

(RTI

) pro

cess

es, a

nd te

am o

rgan

izatio

n ha

s be

en d

eter

min

ed (e

.g.,

one

MTS

S Te

am w

ith a

beh

avio

r tas

k fo

rce

and

an

acad

emic

task

forc

e).

Staf

f hav

e be

en in

trodu

ced

to th

e ST

OIC

acro

nym

and

und

erst

and

that

st

uden

t beh

avio

r and

mot

ivat

ion

can

be

cont

inuo

usly

impr

oved

by

man

ipul

atin

g th

e ST

OIC

varia

bles

: Stru

ctur

e, T

each

, Ob

serv

e, In

tera

ct p

ositi

vely,

and

Co

rrect

flue

ntly.

A pr

elim

inar

y pl

an h

as b

een

deve

lope

d fo

r usi

ng th

e Foundations

mod

ules

. For

a s

choo

l jus

t beg

inni

ng th

e pr

oces

s, th

e pl

an in

clud

es w

orki

ng th

roug

h al

l the

m

odul

es s

eque

ntia

lly. F

or a

sch

ool t

hat h

as im

plem

ente

d as

pect

s of

pos

itive

beh

avio

r sup

port

, the

team

has

se

lf-as

sess

ed s

treng

ths,

wea

knes

ses,

and

nee

ds u

sing

th

is ru

bric

.

Eviden

ce: F

ound

atio

ns Im

plem

enta

tion

Rubr

ic

A2

Team

Pro

cess

es

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

mem

bers

hav

e

been

iden

tified

. The

y di

rect

ly re

pre-

se

nt s

peci

fic fa

culty

and

sta

ff gr

oups

, an

d th

ey h

ave

assi

gned

role

s an

d re

spon

sibi

litie

s.

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

att

ends

trai

ning

s,

mee

ts a

t sch

ool,

and

has

esta

blis

hed

and

mai

ntai

ns a

Fou

ndat

ions

Pro

cess

N

oteb

ook

and

Foun

datio

ns A

rchi

ve.

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

mem

bers

pre

sent

re

gula

rly to

facu

lty a

nd c

omm

unic

ate

with

the

entir

e st

aff.

They

dra

ft pr

opos

als

and

enga

ge s

taff

in th

e de

cisi

on-m

akin

g pr

oces

s re

gard

ing

scho

ol c

limat

e, b

ehav

ior,

and

disc

iplin

e.

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

is k

now

n by

all

staf

f and

is h

ighl

y in

volv

ed in

all

aspe

cts

of c

limat

e, s

afet

y, be

havi

or,

mot

ivat

ion,

and

stu

dent

con

nect

edne

ss.

Eviden

ce: S

taff

mem

bers

repr

esen

ted

by F

ound

atio

ns

Team

mem

bers

and

pre

sent

atio

ns to

sta

ff ar

e do

cum

ente

d in

the

Foun

datio

ns P

roce

ss N

oteb

ook.

A3

Th

e Im

pro

vem

ent

Cyc

le

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

is a

war

e of

th

e Im

prov

emen

t Cyc

le a

nd k

eeps

st

aff i

nfor

med

of t

eam

act

iviti

es.

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

invo

lves

sta

ff in

se

ttin

g pr

iorit

ies

and

in im

plem

entin

g im

prov

emen

ts.

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

invo

lves

sta

ff in

us

ing

mul

tiple

dat

a so

urce

s to

est

ablis

h a

hier

arch

ical

list

of p

riorit

ies

and

adop

t ne

w p

olic

ies.

Tea

m m

embe

rs s

eek

inpu

t fro

m s

taff

rega

rdin

g th

eir s

atis

fact

ion

with

the

effic

acy

of re

cent

ly a

dopt

ed

polic

ies

and

proc

edur

es.

All s

taff

activ

ely

part

icip

ate

in a

ll as

pect

s of

the

Impr

ovem

ent C

ycle

, suc

h as

set

ting

prio

ritie

s,

deve

lopi

ng re

visi

ons,

ado

ptin

g ne

w p

olic

ies

and

proc

edur

es, a

nd im

plem

enta

tion.

Fou

ndat

ion

Team

pr

esen

ts to

sta

ff at

leas

t mon

thly.

Eviden

ce: M

emos

to s

taff

and

Pow

erPo

int

pres

enta

tion

files

are

doc

umen

ted

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Pr

oces

s N

oteb

ook.

A4

Dat

a-D

rive

n

Pro

cess

es

Adm

inis

trato

rs a

nd F

ound

atio

ns

Team

revi

ew d

isci

plin

e da

ta a

nd

esta

blis

h ba

selin

es.

Com

mon

are

a ob

serv

atio

ns a

nd

stud

ent,

staf

f, an

d pa

rent

clim

ate

su

rvey

s ar

e co

nduc

ted

year

ly.

Disc

iplin

e, c

limat

e su

rvey

, and

co

mm

on a

rea

obse

rvat

ion

data

are

re

view

ed a

nd a

naly

zed

regu

larly

.

Base

d on

the

data

, sch

ool p

olic

ies,

pro

cedu

res,

an

d gu

idel

ines

are

revi

ewed

and

mod

ified

as

need

ed

(mai

ntai

ning

the

Impr

ovem

ent C

ycle

).

A5

Dev

elop

ing

Sta

ff

En

gage

men

t an

d

Un

ity

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

regu

larly

co

mm

unic

ates

with

sta

ff th

roug

h

staf

f mee

tings

, sch

edul

ed p

rofe

ssio

nal

deve

lopm

ent,

mem

os, a

nd s

o on

.

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

mem

bers

und

er-

stan

d th

at th

ey p

lay

a ke

y ro

le in

sta

ff un

ity. T

hey

perio

dica

lly a

sses

s w

heth

er

any

fact

ions

of s

taff

are

dise

ngag

ed

and

how

they

can

dev

elop

gre

ater

sta

ff en

gage

men

t in

the Foundations

pro

cess

.

A bu

ildin

g-ba

sed

adm

inis

trato

r at

tend

s m

ost Foundations

trai

ning

s

and

play

s an

act

ive

role

in te

am

mee

tings

and

in a

ssis

ting

the

team

in

unify

ing

staf

f.

For d

istri

cts

with

mor

e th

an fi

ve o

r six

sch

ools

, a

dist

rict-b

ased

team

mee

ts a

t lea

st o

nce

per q

uart

er to

ke

ep th

e Foundations

con

tinuo

us im

prov

emen

t pro

cess

es

activ

e in

all

scho

ols.

Eviden

ce: M

eetin

g m

inut

es a

nd s

taff

pres

enta

tions

are

do

cum

ente

d in

the

Foun

datio

ns P

roce

ss N

oteb

ook.

If an

y ite

ms a

re ra

ted

as le

ss th

an In

Pla

ce o

r if i

t has

bee

n m

ore

than

3 y

ears

sinc

e yo

u ha

ve d

one

so, w

ork

thro

ugh

the

Mod

ule

A Im

plem

enta

tion

Che

cklis

t.

Fou

nd

atio

ns

Imp

lem

enta

tion

Ru

bri

c an

d S

um

mar

y (p

. 1 o

f 8)

Dir

ecti

ons:

In e

ach

row

, che

ck o

ff ea

ch d

escr

iptio

n th

at is

true

for y

our F

ound

atio

ns im

plem

enta

tion.

Then

sum

mar

ize

your

ass

essm

ent o

n th

e Ru

bric

Sum

mar

y fo

rm.

For M

odul

e B,

eva

luat

e ea

ch c

omm

on a

rea

and

scho

olw

ide

polic

y se

para

tely

, and

use

the

row

s lab

eled

Oth

er fo

r com

mon

are

as a

nd sc

hool

wid

e po

licie

s tha

t do

not a

ppea

r on

the

rubr

ic b

y de

faul

t. N

ote:

Each

blo

ck a

ssum

es th

at th

e ac

tiviti

es in

pre

viou

s blo

cks i

n th

e ro

w h

ave

been

att

aine

d.

Mod

ule

A

© 2

014

Paci

fic N

orth

wes

t Pub

lishi

ng

Foun

datio

ns: A

Pro

activ

e and

Pos

itive

Beh

avio

r Sup

port

Sys

tem

© Safe & Civil Schools 10

Page 197: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Scho

ol N

ame

D

ate

Com

mon

Are

Pre

par

ing

(1)

Get

tin

g S

tart

ed (

2)M

ovin

g A

lon

g (3

)In

Pla

ce (

4)

Hal

lway

s

Com

mon

are

a ob

serv

atio

ns

are

cond

ucte

d an

d da

ta fr

om

mul

tiple

sou

rces

are

col

lect

ed

and

anal

yzed

.

Curre

nt s

truct

ures

and

pro

cedu

res

ha

ve b

een

eval

uate

d an

d pr

otec

ted,

m

odifi

ed, o

r elim

inat

ed.

Less

on p

lans

hav

e be

en d

evel

oped

, ta

ught

, pra

ctic

ed, a

nd re

-taug

ht,

whe

n ne

cess

ary.

Com

mon

are

a su

perv

isor

y pr

oced

ures

are

com

mun

icat

ed to

sta

ff

and

mon

itore

d fo

r im

plem

enta

tion

Eviden

ce: P

olic

ies,

pro

cedu

res,

and

less

ons

are

docu

men

ted

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Arc

hive

and

, as

appr

opria

te, i

n th

e St

aff H

andb

ook.

Res

troo

ms

Com

mon

are

a ob

serv

atio

ns

are

cond

ucte

d an

d da

ta fr

om

mul

tiple

sou

rces

are

col

lect

ed

and

anal

yzed

.

Curre

nt s

truct

ures

and

pro

cedu

res

ha

ve b

een

eval

uate

d an

d pr

otec

ted,

m

odifi

ed, o

r elim

inat

ed.

Less

on p

lans

hav

e be

en d

evel

oped

, ta

ught

, pra

ctic

ed, a

nd re

-taug

ht,

whe

n ne

cess

ary.

Com

mon

are

a su

perv

isor

y pr

oced

ures

are

com

mun

icat

ed to

sta

ff

and

mon

itore

d fo

r im

plem

enta

tion

Eviden

ce: P

olic

ies,

pro

cedu

res,

and

less

ons

are

docu

men

ted

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Arc

hive

and

, as

appr

opria

te, i

n th

e St

aff H

andb

ook.

Caf

eter

ia

Com

mon

are

a ob

serv

atio

ns

are

cond

ucte

d an

d da

ta fr

om

mul

tiple

sou

rces

are

col

lect

ed

and

anal

yzed

.

Curre

nt s

truct

ures

and

pro

cedu

res

ha

ve b

een

eval

uate

d an

d pr

otec

ted,

m

odifi

ed, o

r elim

inat

ed.

Less

on p

lans

hav

e be

en d

evel

oped

, ta

ught

, pra

ctic

ed, a

nd re

-taug

ht,

whe

n ne

cess

ary.

Com

mon

are

a su

perv

isor

y pr

oced

ures

are

com

mun

icat

ed to

sta

ff

and

mon

itore

d fo

r im

plem

enta

tion

Eviden

ce: P

olic

ies,

pro

cedu

res,

and

less

ons

are

docu

men

ted

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Arc

hive

and

, as

appr

opria

te, i

n th

e St

aff H

andb

ook.

Pla

ygro

un

d,

Cou

rtya

rd, o

r C

omm

ons

Com

mon

are

a ob

serv

atio

ns

are

cond

ucte

d an

d da

ta fr

om

mul

tiple

sou

rces

are

col

lect

ed

and

anal

yzed

.

Curre

nt s

truct

ures

and

pro

cedu

res

ha

ve b

een

eval

uate

d an

d pr

otec

ted,

m

odifi

ed, o

r elim

inat

ed.

Less

on p

lans

hav

e be

en d

evel

oped

, ta

ught

, pra

ctic

ed, a

nd re

-taug

ht,

whe

n ne

cess

ary.

Com

mon

are

a su

perv

isor

y pr

oced

ures

are

com

mun

icat

ed to

sta

ff

and

mon

itore

d fo

r im

plem

enta

tion

Eviden

ce: P

olic

ies,

pro

cedu

res,

and

less

ons

are

docu

men

ted

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Arc

hive

and

, as

appr

opria

te, i

n th

e St

aff H

andb

ook.

Arr

ival

Com

mon

are

a ob

serv

atio

ns

are

cond

ucte

d an

d da

ta fr

om

mul

tiple

sou

rces

are

col

lect

ed

and

anal

yzed

.

Curre

nt s

truct

ures

and

pro

cedu

res

ha

ve b

een

eval

uate

d an

d pr

otec

ted,

m

odifi

ed, o

r elim

inat

ed.

Less

on p

lans

hav

e be

en d

evel

oped

, ta

ught

, pra

ctic

ed, a

nd re

-taug

ht,

whe

n ne

cess

ary.

Com

mon

are

a su

perv

isor

y pr

oced

ures

are

com

mun

icat

ed to

sta

ff

and

mon

itore

d fo

r im

plem

enta

tion

Eviden

ce: P

olic

ies,

pro

cedu

res,

and

less

ons

are

docu

men

ted

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Arc

hive

and

, as

appr

opria

te, i

n th

e St

aff H

andb

ook.

Dis

mis

sal

Com

mon

are

a ob

serv

atio

ns

are

cond

ucte

d an

d da

ta fr

om

mul

tiple

sou

rces

are

col

lect

ed

and

anal

yzed

.

Curre

nt s

truct

ures

and

pro

cedu

res

ha

ve b

een

eval

uate

d an

d pr

otec

ted,

m

odifi

ed, o

r elim

inat

ed.

Less

on p

lans

hav

e be

en d

evel

oped

, ta

ught

, pra

ctic

ed, a

nd re

-taug

ht,

whe

n ne

cess

ary.

Com

mon

are

a su

perv

isor

y pr

oced

ures

are

com

mun

icat

ed to

sta

ff

and

mon

itore

d fo

r im

plem

enta

tion

Eviden

ce: P

olic

ies,

pro

cedu

res,

and

less

ons

are

docu

men

ted

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Arc

hive

and

, as

appr

opria

te, i

n th

e St

aff H

andb

ook.

Oth

er:

Com

mon

are

a ob

serv

atio

ns

are

cond

ucte

d an

d da

ta fr

om

mul

tiple

sou

rces

are

col

lect

ed

and

anal

yzed

.

Curre

nt s

truct

ures

and

pro

cedu

res

ha

ve b

een

eval

uate

d an

d pr

otec

ted,

m

odifi

ed, o

r elim

inat

ed.

Less

on p

lans

hav

e be

en d

evel

oped

, ta

ught

, pra

ctic

ed, a

nd re

-taug

ht,

whe

n ne

cess

ary.

Com

mon

are

a su

perv

isor

y pr

oced

ures

are

com

mun

icat

ed to

sta

ff

and

mon

itore

d fo

r im

plem

enta

tion

Eviden

ce: P

olic

ies,

pro

cedu

res,

and

less

ons

are

docu

men

ted

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Arc

hive

and

, as

appr

opria

te, i

n th

e St

aff H

andb

ook.

Oth

er:

Com

mon

are

a ob

serv

atio

ns

are

cond

ucte

d an

d da

ta fr

om

mul

tiple

sou

rces

are

col

lect

ed

and

anal

yzed

.

Curre

nt s

truct

ures

and

pro

cedu

res

ha

ve b

een

eval

uate

d an

d pr

otec

ted,

m

odifi

ed, o

r elim

inat

ed.

Less

on p

lans

hav

e be

en d

evel

oped

, ta

ught

, pra

ctic

ed, a

nd re

-taug

ht,

whe

n ne

cess

ary.

Com

mon

are

a su

perv

isor

y pr

oced

ures

are

com

mun

icat

ed to

sta

ff

and

mon

itore

d fo

r im

plem

enta

tion

Eviden

ce: P

olic

ies,

pro

cedu

res,

and

less

ons

are

docu

men

ted

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Arc

hive

and

, as

appr

opria

te, i

n th

e St

aff H

andb

ook.

If an

y ite

ms a

re ra

ted

as le

ss th

an In

Pla

ce o

r if i

t has

bee

n m

ore

than

3 y

ears

sinc

e yo

u ha

ve d

one

so, w

ork

thro

ugh

the

Mod

ule

B Im

plem

enta

tion

Che

cklis

t.

Fou

nd

atio

ns

Imp

lem

enta

tion

Ru

bri

c an

d S

um

mar

y (p

. 2 o

f 8)

Mod

ule

B

© 2

014

Paci

fic N

orth

wes

t Pub

lishi

ng

Foun

datio

ns: A

Pro

activ

e and

Pos

itive

Beh

avio

r Sup

port

Sys

tem

© Safe & Civil Schools 11

Page 198: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Scho

ol N

ame

D

ate

Sch

oolw

ide

Pol

icy 

P

rep

arin

g (1

)G

etti

ng

Sta

rted

(2)

Mov

ing

Alo

ng

(3)

In P

lace

(4)

Dre

ss C

ode

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

di

scus

sed

the

clar

ity a

nd

cons

iste

ncy

of th

e cu

rrent

sc

hool

wid

e po

licy.

Data

from

mul

tiple

sou

rces

abo

ut

the

effic

acy

of th

e po

licy

have

bee

n ga

ther

ed a

nd a

naly

zed.

The

polic

y ha

s be

en a

naly

zed

for

clar

ity, e

ffica

cy, a

nd c

onsi

sten

cy

of e

nfor

cem

ent.

Scho

olw

ide

polic

ies,

less

ons,

and

pro

cedu

res

have

bee

n w

ritte

n

and

are

revi

ewed

as

need

ed w

ith s

taff,

stu

dent

s, a

nd p

aren

ts.

Eviden

ce: P

olic

ies,

less

ons,

and

pro

cedu

res

are

docu

men

ted

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Arc

hive

and

, as

appr

opria

te, i

n th

e St

aff H

andb

ook.

Oth

er:

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

di

scus

sed

the

clar

ity a

nd

cons

iste

ncy

of th

e cu

rrent

sc

hool

wid

e po

licy.

Data

from

mul

tiple

sou

rces

abo

ut

the

effic

acy

of th

e po

licy

have

bee

n ga

ther

ed a

nd a

naly

zed.

The

polic

y ha

s be

en a

naly

zed

for

clar

ity, e

ffica

cy, a

nd c

onsi

sten

cy

of e

nfor

cem

ent.

Scho

olw

ide

polic

ies,

less

ons,

and

pro

cedu

res

have

bee

n w

ritte

n

and

are

revi

ewed

as

need

ed w

ith s

taff,

stu

dent

s, a

nd p

aren

ts.

Eviden

ce: P

olic

ies,

less

ons,

and

pro

cedu

res

are

docu

men

ted

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Arc

hive

and

, as

appr

opria

te, i

n th

e St

aff H

andb

ook.

Oth

er:

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

di

scus

sed

the

clar

ity a

nd

cons

iste

ncy

of th

e cu

rrent

sc

hool

wid

e po

licy.

Data

from

mul

tiple

sou

rces

abo

ut

the

effic

acy

of th

e po

licy

have

bee

n ga

ther

ed a

nd a

naly

zed.

The

polic

y ha

s be

en a

naly

zed

for

clar

ity, e

ffica

cy, a

nd c

onsi

sten

cy

of e

nfor

cem

ent.

Scho

olw

ide

polic

ies,

less

ons,

and

pro

cedu

res

have

bee

n w

ritte

n

and

are

revi

ewed

as

need

ed w

ith s

taff,

stu

dent

s, a

nd p

aren

ts.

Eviden

ce: P

olic

ies,

less

ons,

and

pro

cedu

res

are

docu

men

ted

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Arc

hive

and

, as

appr

opria

te, i

n th

e St

aff H

andb

ook.

Oth

er:

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

di

scus

sed

the

clar

ity a

nd

cons

iste

ncy

of th

e cu

rrent

sc

hool

wid

e po

licy.

Data

from

mul

tiple

sou

rces

abo

ut

the

effic

acy

of th

e po

licy

have

bee

n ga

ther

ed a

nd a

naly

zed.

The

polic

y ha

s be

en a

naly

zed

for

clar

ity, e

ffica

cy, a

nd c

onsi

sten

cy

of e

nfor

cem

ent.

Scho

olw

ide

polic

ies,

less

ons,

and

pro

cedu

res

have

bee

n w

ritte

n

and

are

revi

ewed

as

need

ed w

ith s

taff,

stu

dent

s, a

nd p

aren

ts.

Eviden

ce: P

olic

ies,

less

ons,

and

pro

cedu

res

are

docu

men

ted

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Arc

hive

and

, as

appr

opria

te, i

n th

e St

aff H

andb

ook.

Oth

er:

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

di

scus

sed

the

clar

ity a

nd

cons

iste

ncy

of th

e cu

rrent

sc

hool

wid

e po

licy.

Data

from

mul

tiple

sou

rces

abo

ut

the

effic

acy

of th

e po

licy

have

bee

n ga

ther

ed a

nd a

naly

zed.

The

polic

y ha

s be

en a

naly

zed

for

clar

ity, e

ffica

cy, a

nd c

onsi

sten

cy

of e

nfor

cem

ent.

Scho

olw

ide

polic

ies,

less

ons,

and

pro

cedu

res

have

bee

n w

ritte

n

and

are

revi

ewed

as

need

ed w

ith s

taff,

stu

dent

s, a

nd p

aren

ts.

Eviden

ce: P

olic

ies,

less

ons,

and

pro

cedu

res

are

docu

men

ted

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Arc

hive

and

, as

appr

opria

te, i

n th

e St

aff H

andb

ook.

Oth

er:

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

di

scus

sed

the

clar

ity a

nd

cons

iste

ncy

of th

e cu

rrent

sc

hool

wid

e po

licy.

Data

from

mul

tiple

sou

rces

abo

ut

the

effic

acy

of th

e po

licy

have

bee

n ga

ther

ed a

nd a

naly

zed.

The

polic

y ha

s be

en a

naly

zed

for

clar

ity, e

ffica

cy, a

nd c

onsi

sten

cy

of e

nfor

cem

ent.

Scho

olw

ide

polic

ies,

less

ons,

and

pro

cedu

res

have

bee

n w

ritte

n

and

are

revi

ewed

as

need

ed w

ith s

taff,

stu

dent

s, a

nd p

aren

ts.

Eviden

ce: P

olic

ies,

less

ons,

and

pro

cedu

res

are

docu

men

ted

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Arc

hive

and

, as

appr

opria

te, i

n th

e St

aff H

andb

ook.

Oth

er:

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

di

scus

sed

the

clar

ity a

nd

cons

iste

ncy

of th

e cu

rrent

sc

hool

wid

e po

licy.

Data

from

mul

tiple

sou

rces

abo

ut

the

effic

acy

of th

e po

licy

have

bee

n ga

ther

ed a

nd a

naly

zed.

The

polic

y ha

s be

en a

naly

zed

for

clar

ity, e

ffica

cy, a

nd c

onsi

sten

cy

of e

nfor

cem

ent.

Scho

olw

ide

polic

ies,

less

ons,

and

pro

cedu

res

have

bee

n w

ritte

n

and

are

revi

ewed

as

need

ed w

ith s

taff,

stu

dent

s, a

nd p

aren

ts.

Eviden

ce: P

olic

ies,

less

ons,

and

pro

cedu

res

are

docu

men

ted

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Arc

hive

and

, as

appr

opria

te, i

n th

e St

aff H

andb

ook.

Oth

er:

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

di

scus

sed

the

clar

ity a

nd

cons

iste

ncy

of th

e cu

rrent

sc

hool

wid

e po

licy.

Data

from

mul

tiple

sou

rces

abo

ut

the

effic

acy

of th

e po

licy

have

bee

n ga

ther

ed a

nd a

naly

zed.

The

polic

y ha

s be

en a

naly

zed

for

clar

ity, e

ffica

cy, a

nd c

onsi

sten

cy

of e

nfor

cem

ent.

Scho

olw

ide

polic

ies,

less

ons,

and

pro

cedu

res

have

bee

n w

ritte

n

and

are

revi

ewed

as

need

ed w

ith s

taff,

stu

dent

s, a

nd p

aren

ts.

Eviden

ce: P

olic

ies,

less

ons,

and

pro

cedu

res

are

docu

men

ted

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Arc

hive

and

, as

appr

opria

te, i

n th

e St

aff H

andb

ook.

If an

y ite

ms a

re ra

ted

as le

ss th

an In

Pla

ce o

r if i

t has

bee

n m

ore

than

3 y

ears

sinc

e yo

u ha

ve d

one

so, w

ork

thro

ugh

the

Mod

ule

B Im

plem

enta

tion

Che

cklis

t.

Fou

nd

atio

ns

Imp

lem

enta

tion

Ru

bri

c an

d S

um

mar

y (p

. 3 o

f 8)

Mod

ule

B

© 2

014

Paci

fic N

orth

wes

t Pub

lishi

ng

Foun

datio

ns: A

Pro

activ

e and

Pos

itive

Beh

avio

r Sup

port

Sys

tem

© Safe & Civil Schools 12

Page 199: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Scho

ol N

ame

D

ate

Pre

sen

tati

on 

Pre

par

ing

(1)

Get

tin

g S

tart

ed (

2)M

ovin

g A

lon

g (3

)In

Pla

ce (

4)

C2G

uid

elin

es f

or

Su

cces

s (G

FS

)

All s

taff

unde

rsta

nd w

hat

Guid

elin

es fo

r Suc

cess

(GFS

) are

an

d w

hy th

ey a

re im

port

ant.

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

dra

fted

pr

opos

als

and

enga

ged

all s

take

hold

ers

in th

e de

cisi

on-m

akin

g pr

oces

s of

de

velo

ping

GFS

.

GFS

have

bee

n fin

alize

d an

d po

sted

an

d ar

e re

view

ed re

gula

rly.

GFS

are

embe

dded

into

the

cultu

re a

nd a

re p

art o

f the

co

mm

on la

ngua

ge o

f the

sch

ool.

Eviden

ce: P

roce

dure

s for

teac

hing

and

mot

ivat

ing

st

uden

ts a

bout

GFS

are

doc

umen

ted

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Ar

chiv

e, S

taff

Hand

book

, and

Stu

dent

and

Par

ent H

andb

ook.

C3R

atio

s of

Pos

itiv

e In

tera

ctio

ns

Staf

f hav

e be

en ta

ught

the

conc

ept

of 3

:1 ra

tios

of p

ositi

ve in

tera

ctio

ns

and

the

impo

rtan

ce o

f cre

atin

g a

posi

tive

clim

ate

and

impr

ovin

g st

uden

t beh

avio

r.

Staf

f hav

e be

en ta

ught

how

to

mon

itor r

atio

s of

pos

itive

inte

ract

ions

an

d ar

e en

cour

aged

to e

valu

ate

thei

r in

tera

ctio

ns w

ith s

tude

nts.

Adm

inis

trato

r pla

ns fo

r tea

cher

s to

ob

serv

e an

d ca

lcul

ate

othe

r tea

cher

s’

clas

sroo

m ra

tios

of in

tera

ctio

ns;

the

teac

hers

invo

lved

mee

t to

disc

uss

outc

omes

.

Obse

rvat

ion

data

sho

w th

at m

ost s

taff

at m

ost t

imes

st

rive

to in

tera

ct w

ith s

tude

nts

at le

ast t

hree

tim

es m

ore

ofte

n w

hen

stud

ents

are

beh

avin

g re

spon

sibl

y th

an w

hen

they

are

mis

beha

ving

.

Eviden

ce: P

roce

dure

s fo

r tea

chin

g an

d m

otiv

atin

g st

aff a

re d

ocum

ente

d in

the

Foun

datio

ns A

rchi

ve a

nd

Staf

f Han

dboo

k.

C4Im

pro

vin

g A

tten

dan

ce

Aver

age

daily

att

enda

nce

is

mon

itore

d to

vie

w lo

ng-te

rm tr

ends

an

d pa

tter

ns. F

acul

ty a

nd s

taff

have

be

en m

ade

awar

e of

the

impo

rtan

ce

of e

ncou

ragi

ng re

gula

r att

enda

nce

by

all s

tude

nts.

All s

tude

nts

with

chr

onic

abs

ente

e-

ism

(abs

ent 1

0% o

r mor

e of

sch

ool

days

) are

iden

tified

at l

east

qua

rter

ly;

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

det

erm

ines

whe

ther

un

iver

sal i

nter

vent

ion

is w

arra

nted

.

Each

stu

dent

with

chr

onic

abs

ent-

eeis

m is

iden

tified

and

ass

igne

d on

e sc

hool

-bas

ed s

uppo

rt p

erso

n w

ho

mon

itors

whe

ther

add

ition

al s

uppo

rt is

ne

eded

. Fou

ndat

ions

Tea

m h

as a

naly

zed

atte

ndan

ce d

ata

and

anal

yzed

pol

icie

s fo

r cla

rity

and

effic

acy.

Ever

y st

uden

t with

chr

onic

abs

ente

eism

that

has

bee

n re

sist

ant t

o un

iver

sal a

nd T

ier 2

sup

port

s be

com

es th

e fo

cus

of a

mul

tidis

cipl

inar

y te

am e

ffor

t.

Eviden

ce: D

ata

on a

vera

ge d

aily

att

enda

nce

and

chro

nic

abse

ntee

ism

as

wel

l as

effo

rts

to im

prov

e at

tend

ance

(e

.g.,

pare

nt n

ewsl

ette

rs) a

re d

ocum

ente

d in

the

Foun

datio

ns P

roce

ss N

oteb

ook.

C5 &

C6

Sch

ool

Con

nec

ted

nes

s an

d P

rogr

ams

and

Str

ateg

ies

for

Mee

tin

g N

eed

s

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

ana

lyze

d

the

degr

ee to

whi

ch c

urre

nt p

rogr

ams

and

prac

tices

mee

t the

nee

ds o

f al

l stu

dent

s (o

utst

andi

ng, a

vera

ge,

and

at ri

sk).

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

dev

elop

ed

prop

osal

s fo

r pro

gram

s an

d pr

actic

es

that

mig

ht h

elp

mee

t unm

et n

eeds

of

stud

ents

(e.g

., th

e av

erag

e st

uden

t’s

need

for p

urpo

se a

nd b

elon

ging

).

Facu

lty a

nd s

taff

have

impl

emen

ted

prog

ram

s an

d pr

actic

es d

esig

ned

to

mee

t bas

ic n

eeds

of a

ll st

uden

ts

(e.g

., M

ento

rshi

p, S

tude

nt o

f the

Wee

k,

Mea

ning

ful W

ork)

.

Prog

ram

s to

mee

t stu

dent

s’ b

asic

nee

ds a

re in

pla

ce

and

anal

yzed

at l

east

onc

e pe

r yea

r to

dete

rmin

e th

eir

effe

ctiv

enes

s an

d as

sess

whe

ther

the

need

s of

any

st

uden

t gro

ups

are

not b

eing

met

.

Eviden

ce: A

naly

sis

is d

ocum

ente

d in

the

Foun

datio

ns

Proc

ess

Not

eboo

k, a

nd p

rogr

ams

and

prac

tices

for m

eet-

ing

need

s ar

e do

cum

ente

d in

the

Foun

datio

ns A

rchi

ve.

C7W

elco

min

g N

ew

Sta

ff, S

tud

ents

, an

d F

amil

ies

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

revi

ewed

th

e w

elco

min

g as

pect

s of

the

sc

hool

, suc

h as

sig

nage

, web

site

, and

ph

one

and

front

offi

ce p

roce

dure

s, a

nd

has

sugg

este

d im

prov

emen

ts.

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

ana

lyze

d

proc

edur

es a

nd s

ugge

sted

impr

ove-

men

ts fo

r wel

com

ing

and

orie

ntin

g ne

w

stud

ents

and

fam

ilies

at t

he b

egin

ning

of

the

scho

ol y

ear.

(New

stu

dent

s in

clud

e th

ose

in a

new

gra

de-le

vel c

ohor

t [e.

g.,

nint

h gr

ader

s in

hig

h sc

hool

] and

stu

dent

s w

ho a

re n

ot p

art o

f tha

t coh

ort.)

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

ana

lyze

d pr

oced

ures

and

sug

gest

ed

impr

ovem

ents

for w

elco

min

g ne

w

stud

ents

and

fam

ilies

who

arri

ve d

urin

g th

e sc

hool

yea

r. Im

prov

emen

ts m

ight

in

clud

e w

ritte

n in

form

atio

n ab

out r

ules

, pr

oced

ures

, GFS

, and

so

on.

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

ana

lyze

d pr

oced

ures

and

su

gges

ted

impr

ovem

ents

for w

elco

min

g ne

w s

taff

mem

bers

, bot

h pr

ofes

sion

al a

nd n

onpr

ofes

sion

al, a

t the

be

ginn

ing

of th

e ye

ar. N

ew s

taff

mem

bers

are

orie

nted

to

esse

ntia

l pro

cedu

res

and

the

cultu

re a

nd c

limat

e de

fined

by

the

scho

ol’s

beha

vior

sup

port

pro

cedu

res.

Eviden

ce: A

ll po

licie

s an

d pr

oced

ures

for w

elco

min

g an

d or

ient

ing

staf

f, st

uden

ts, a

nd fa

mili

es a

re d

ocum

ente

d in

th

e Fo

unda

tions

Arc

hive

.

If an

y ite

ms a

re ra

ted

as le

ss th

an In

Pla

ce o

r if i

t has

bee

n m

ore

than

3 y

ears

sinc

e yo

u ha

ve d

one

so, w

ork

thro

ugh

the

Mod

ule

C Im

plem

enta

tion

Che

cklis

t.

Fou

nd

atio

ns

Imp

lem

enta

tion

Ru

bri

c an

d S

um

mar

y (p

. 4 o

f 8)

Mod

ule

C

© 2

014

Paci

fic N

orth

wes

t Pub

lishi

ng

Foun

datio

ns: A

Pro

activ

e and

Pos

itive

Beh

avio

r Sup

port

Sys

tem

© Safe & Civil Schools 13

Page 200: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Scho

ol N

ame

D

ate

Pre

sen

tati

on 

Pre

par

ing

(1)

Get

tin

g S

tart

ed (

2)M

ovin

g A

lon

g (3

)In

Pla

ce (

4)

D1

Pro

acti

ve P

roce

dure

s,

Cor

rect

ive

Pro

cedu

res,

an

d In

divi

dual

In

terv

enti

ons

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

is a

war

e of

da

ta a

nd s

taff

opin

ions

abo

ut

cons

iste

ncy

in c

orre

ctin

g m

isbe

havi

or,

incl

udin

g cl

arity

of s

taff

role

s in

dis

cipl

ine

com

pare

d w

ith

adm

inis

trativ

e ro

les.

Staf

f und

erst

and

the

pote

ntia

l lim

itatio

ns o

f offi

ce re

ferr

al a

s a

corre

ctiv

e pr

oced

ure

and

avoi

d us

ing

it w

hene

ver p

ossi

ble.

Staf

f hav

e be

en m

ade

awar

e of

th

e lim

ited

bene

fits

and

pote

ntia

l dr

awba

cks

(incl

udin

g di

spar

ate

impa

ct)

of o

ut-o

f-sch

ool s

uspe

nsio

n (O

SS) a

s a

corre

ctiv

e co

nseq

uenc

e.

Staf

f avo

id p

ress

urin

g ad

min

istra

tors

to u

se O

SS.

Staf

f per

cept

ions

of c

onsi

sten

cy a

nd a

dmin

istra

tive

supp

ort f

or d

isci

plin

ary

actio

ns a

re d

ocum

ente

d in

sta

ff su

rvey

resu

lts.

Eviden

ce: D

iscu

ssio

ns o

n th

ese

topi

cs a

re d

ocum

ente

d in

th

e Fo

unda

tions

Pro

cess

Not

eboo

k.

D2

Dev

elop

ing

Th

ree

Lev

els

of

Mis

beh

avio

r

Staf

f are

aw

are

of th

e co

ncep

t of

thre

e le

vels

of m

isbe

havi

or: L

evel

1

(mild

), Le

vel 2

(mod

erat

e), a

nd L

evel

3

(sev

ere)

mis

beha

vior

.

Annu

ally,

sta

ff di

scus

s an

d ag

ree

on

wha

t beh

avio

r must b

e se

nt to

the

adm

inis

trato

r, w

hat c

an b

e se

nt to

th

e ad

min

istra

tor,

and

wha

t sho

uld

be h

andl

ed in

the

sett

ing

in w

hich

the

infra

ctio

n oc

curre

d (3

-leve

l sys

tem

for

resp

ondi

ng to

mis

beha

vior

).

A re

ferr

al fo

rm th

at re

flect

s th

e

agre

ed-u

pon

defin

ition

of L

evel

3 m

is-

beha

vior

has

bee

n de

velo

ped.

A n

otifi

ca-

tion

form

that

refle

cts

the

agre

ed-u

pon

defin

ition

of L

evel

2 m

isbe

havi

or h

as

been

dev

elop

ed. (

Alte

rnat

ivel

y, bo

th

Leve

l 2 a

nd L

evel

3 m

ay b

e on

one

form

.) Ac

cura

te d

ata

are

kept

and

ana

lyze

d qu

arte

rly fo

r all

Leve

l 2 a

nd L

evel

3

mis

beha

vior

s an

d co

nseq

uenc

es.

Data

are

col

lect

ed o

n th

e im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e

3-le

vel s

yste

m fo

r res

pond

ing

to m

isbe

havi

or a

nd o

n st

aff a

nd a

dmin

istra

tor s

atis

fact

ion

with

the

syst

em.

Eviden

ce: A

ll as

pect

s of

the

polic

y ar

e do

cum

ente

d in

th

e Fo

unda

tions

Arc

hive

and

Sta

ff Ha

ndbo

ok.

D3

Sta

ff

Res

pon

sib

ilit

ies

for

Res

pon

din

g to

M

isb

ehav

ior

Staf

f hav

e ge

nera

ted

and

adm

inis

trato

rs h

ave

appr

oved

a

men

u of

cor

rect

ive

cons

eque

nces

for

use

in c

omm

on a

reas

.

Staf

f hav

e ge

nera

ted

and

adm

in-

istra

tors

hav

e ap

prov

ed a

men

u of

co

rrect

ive

cons

eque

nces

for u

se in

cl

assr

oom

s.

Staf

f hav

e be

en tr

aine

d in

how

to

use

Leve

l 2 n

otifi

catio

ns a

s a

proc

ess

fo

r mov

ing

tow

ard

colla

bora

tive

plan

ning

for s

ever

e or

chr

onic

be

havi

or p

robl

ems.

Staf

f hav

e be

en tr

aine

d in

writ

ing

obje

ctiv

e an

d ap

prop

riate

offi

ce re

ferr

als

for L

evel

3 m

isbe

havi

or.

Eviden

ce: M

enus

and

pro

cedu

res

are

docu

men

ted

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Arc

hive

and

Sta

ff Ha

ndbo

ok.

D4

Ad

min

istr

ator

R

esp

onsi

bil

itie

s fo

r R

esp

ond

ing

to

Mis

beh

avio

r

Proc

edur

es h

ave

been

dev

elop

ed

for r

espo

ndin

g to

Lev

el 2

not

ifi-

catio

ns to

ens

ure

that

the

repo

rtin

g st

aff m

embe

r rec

eive

s tim

ely

feed

back

an

d th

at a

dmin

istra

tors

and

sup

port

st

aff t

ake

appr

opria

te a

ctio

ns.

Offic

e pr

oced

ures

for d

ealin

g w

ith

stud

ents

sen

t to

the

offic

e ha

ve b

een

anal

yzed

and

stre

amlin

ed. S

tude

nts

do n

ot g

et to

o m

uch

atte

ntio

n fro

m

offic

e st

aff o

r sta

ff m

embe

rs w

ho v

isit

the

offic

e

Adm

inis

trato

rs a

re fa

mili

ar w

ith th

e ga

me

plan

for d

ealin

g w

ith L

evel

3

inci

dent

s. T

he g

ame

plan

incl

udes

a

men

u of

alte

rnat

ive

cons

eque

nces

to

out-o

f-sch

ool s

uspe

nsio

n.

If th

e sc

hool

has

an

ISS

prog

ram

, tha

t pro

gram

has

be

en a

naly

zed

and

revi

sed

as n

eede

d to

ens

ure

that

it

is h

ighl

y st

ruct

ured

and

incl

udes

an

inst

ruct

iona

l co

mpo

nent

.

Eviden

ce: A

ll pr

oced

ures

for L

evel

2 a

nd L

evel

3

infra

ctio

ns a

re d

ocum

ente

d in

the

Foun

datio

ns A

rchi

ve.

D5

Pre

ven

tin

g th

e M

isb

ehav

ior

Th

at

Lea

ds

to R

efer

rals

an

d S

usp

ensi

ons

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

exa

min

ed

data

on

Leve

l 2 a

nd L

evel

3 in

fract

ions

to

det

erm

ine

wha

t mis

beha

vior

s ge

t st

uden

ts in

to tr

oubl

e.

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

revi

ewed

the

less

ons

in M

odul

e D

(how

to in

tera

ct

appr

opria

tely

with

adu

lts) a

nd d

iscu

ssed

w

heth

er th

ey m

ight

redu

ce m

isbe

havi

ors

that

get

stu

dent

s in

to tr

oubl

e.

To a

void

dup

licat

ion,

the

Foun

datio

ns

Team

has

com

pare

d th

e M

odul

e D

less

ons

with

oth

er s

ocia

l ski

lls o

r soc

ial-

emot

iona

l cur

ricul

a cu

rrent

ly in

use

. St

aff h

ave

agre

ed o

n a

plan

for w

hen

and

how

to te

ach

expe

cted

beh

avio

rs to

al

l stu

dent

s.

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

dis

cuss

ed w

heth

er re

-teac

hing

th

e M

odul

e D

less

ons

(or s

imila

r) in

ISS

or d

eten

tion

sett

ings

wou

ld b

e be

nefic

ial;

if so

, the

team

has

pla

nned

w

hen

and

how

to re

-teac

h.

Eviden

ce: L

esso

n pl

ans

and

teac

hing

logi

stic

s an

d sc

hedu

le a

re d

ocum

ente

d in

the

Foun

datio

ns A

rchi

ve.

If an

y ite

ms a

re ra

ted

as le

ss th

an In

Pla

ce o

r if i

t has

bee

n m

ore

than

3 y

ears

sinc

e yo

u ha

ve d

one

so, w

ork

thro

ugh

the

Mod

ule

D Im

plem

enta

tion

Che

cklis

t.

Fou

nd

atio

ns

Imp

lem

enta

tion

Ru

bri

c an

d S

um

mar

y (p

. 5 o

f 8)

Mod

ule

D

© 2

014

Paci

fic N

orth

wes

t Pub

lishi

ng

Foun

datio

ns: A

Pro

activ

e and

Pos

itive

Beh

avio

r Sup

port

Sys

tem

© Safe & Civil Schools 14

Page 201: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Scho

ol N

ame

D

ate

Pre

sen

tati

on 

Pre

par

ing

(1)

Get

tin

g S

tart

ed (

2)M

ovin

g A

lon

g (3

)In

Pla

ce (

4)

E1E

nsu

rin

g a

Saf

e E

nvi

ron

men

t fo

r S

tude

nts

Team

mem

bers

are

aw

are

of

thei

r res

pons

ibili

ties

for o

vers

eein

g sc

hool

saf

ety

effo

rts.

The

team

co

ordi

nate

s w

ith o

ther

team

s or

ta

sk fo

rces

that

may

be

doin

g si

mila

r wor

k an

d av

oids

dup

licat

ing

othe

r eff

orts

.

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

vie

wed

or

read

Mod

ule

E an

d ha

s co

mpa

red

that

con

tent

with

the

scho

ol’s

curre

nt e

ffor

ts to

war

d sa

fety

, m

anag

ing

confl

ict,

and

bully

ing

prev

entio

n. T

he te

am h

as d

evel

oped

a

prop

osal

for c

losi

ng a

ny g

aps

in th

e cu

rrent

eff

orts

.

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

mad

e st

aff

awar

e of

the

impo

rtan

ce o

f a

com

preh

ensi

ve v

iew

of s

afet

y th

at in

clud

es p

repa

ring

for o

utsi

de

atta

cker

s as

wel

l as

the

mor

e co

mm

on

occu

rrenc

es o

f pla

ygro

und

inju

ries,

st

uden

t figh

ts, b

ully

ing,

and

so

on.

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

ass

esse

d pr

oble

ms

with

saf

ety,

co

nflic

t, an

d bu

llyin

g w

ithin

the

last

3 y

ears

. If p

robl

ems

exis

t, a

plan

for u

sing

or a

dapt

ing

info

rmat

ion

from

this

mod

ule

and

inte

grat

ing

them

with

cur

rent

cur

ricul

um o

r pro

cedu

res

has

been

co

mpl

eted

.

Eviden

ce: D

ata

anal

yses

are

doc

umen

ted

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Pr

oces

s N

oteb

ook,

and

fina

l pol

icie

s an

d pr

oced

ures

are

doc

u-m

ente

d in

the

Foun

datio

ns A

rchi

ve.

E2A

ttri

bu

tes

of

Saf

e an

d U

nsa

fe

Sch

ools

Team

mem

bers

and

oth

er s

taff

di

rect

ly in

volv

ed w

ith s

afet

y

conc

erns

hav

e vi

ewed

or r

ead

Pr

esen

tatio

n 2

and

have

com

plet

ed

(indi

vidu

ally

) the

form

Und

erst

andi

ng

the

Attri

bute

s of

Saf

e an

d Un

safe

Sc

hool

s.

Foun

datio

ns Te

am h

as c

ompi

led

indi

vidu

al re

spon

ses t

o Un

ders

tand

ing

Attri

bute

s of S

afe

and

Unsa

fe S

choo

ls an

d co

rrela

ted

thos

e da

ta w

ith s

afet

y as

sess

men

ts c

ompl

eted

in th

e la

st 3

ye

ars.

Info

rmat

ion

abou

t stre

ngth

s and

co

ncer

ns h

as b

een

shar

ed w

ith s

taff,

an

d pr

iorit

ies h

ave

been

set

.

Foun

datio

ns Te

am a

nd o

ther

sta

ff in

volv

ed w

ith s

afet

y con

cern

s hav

e

com

plet

ed th

e fo

rm A

sses

sing

Emer

genc

y Pre

pare

dnes

s, ev

alua

ted

curre

nt p

lans

for n

atur

al d

isas

ters

and

m

an-m

ade

emer

genc

ies,

revi

sed

any

wea

k pro

cedu

res,

inclu

ding

trai

ning

on

polic

ies r

egar

ding

sec

lusio

n an

d re

stra

int.

Foun

datio

ns Te

am h

as c

ompl

eted

the

form

Les

sons

to In

- cr

ease

Saf

ety a

nd B

elon

ging

, rev

iew

ed th

e M

odul

e E

sam

ple

less

ons,

and

eval

uate

d w

heth

er cu

rrent

pro

blem

s and

pol

icies

ad

dres

s all

feat

ures

of t

he s

ampl

e le

sson

s. If

ther

e ar

e ga

ps, a

pl

an to

teac

h so

me

or a

ll of

the Foundations

less

ons i

s est

ablis

hed.

Eviden

ce: L

esso

n pl

ans

and

proc

edur

es a

re d

ocum

ente

d in

the

Foun

datio

ns A

rchi

ve.

E3Te

ach

ing

Con

flic

t R

esol

uti

on

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

ass

esse

d w

heth

er th

e sc

hool

has

a c

onfli

ct

reso

lutio

n st

rate

gy th

at s

tude

nts

and

staf

f use

whe

n ne

cess

ary.

If so

, do

cum

ent t

he e

ffec

tive

proc

edur

es

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Arc

hive

(and

ski

p th

e re

st o

f thi

s ro

w).

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

revi

ewed

th

e co

ncep

ts a

nd le

sson

s in

the

Stop

-Thi

nk-P

lan

(STP

) app

roac

h an

d ha

s pr

epar

ed a

n im

plem

enta

tion

plan

fo

r sta

ff.

With

sta

ff in

put,

less

ons

have

bee

n re

vise

d, a

n im

plem

enta

tion

plan

has

be

en e

stab

lishe

d, a

nd a

pro

cess

is in

pl

ace

for t

rain

ing

all s

taff

in h

ow to

en

cour

age

stud

ents

to u

se th

e co

nflic

t-re

solu

tion

stra

tegy

.

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

est

ablis

hed

a pr

oces

s fo

r eva

luat

ing

th

e ef

fect

iven

ess

of S

TP b

y an

alyz

ing

mul

tiple

dat

a so

urce

s.

The

polic

y an

d le

sson

s ar

e re

vise

d an

d st

aff a

re re

train

ed w

hen

nece

ssar

y, an

d su

cces

ses

are

cele

brat

ed.

Eviden

ce: D

ata

anal

yses

are

doc

umen

ted

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Pr

oces

s N

oteb

ook,

and

less

ons

and

teac

hing

pro

cedu

res

are

docu

men

ted

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Arc

hive

.

E4A

nal

yzin

g B

ull

yin

g B

ehav

ior,

Pol

icie

s,

and

Sch

ool N

eed

s

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

is a

war

e of

th

e co

nten

t of t

his

pres

enta

tion

an

d ca

n co

mpa

re it

with

cur

rent

po

licie

s an

d pr

oced

ures

rela

ted

to b

ully

ing.

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

com

plet

ed

the

form

Sch

ool-B

ased

Ana

lysi

s of

Bul

lyin

g Da

ta a

nd h

as id

entifi

ed

whe

ther

new

or r

evis

ed p

roce

dure

s ne

ed to

be

impl

emen

ted

to e

nhan

ce

the

curre

nt u

se o

f dat

a re

late

d to

bul

lyin

g.

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

com

plet

ed

the

form

Sch

ool-B

ased

Ana

lysi

s of

Bu

llyin

g Po

licie

s an

d ha

s id

entifi

ed

whe

ther

new

or r

evis

ed p

olic

ies

need

to

be

impl

emen

ted

to e

nhan

ce c

urre

nt

polic

ies

rela

ted

to b

ully

ing.

Quar

terly

, the

Fou

ndat

ions

Tea

m re

view

s da

ta re

late

d

to b

ully

ing.

Ann

ually

, the

team

use

s th

ose

data

to a

nsw

er

each

of t

he q

uest

ions

in th

e fo

rm S

TOIC

Ana

lysi

s fo

r Uni

vers

al

Prev

entio

n of

Bul

lyin

g (o

r an

equi

vale

nt p

roce

ss),

and

impr

ovem

ent p

riorit

ies

are

esta

blis

hed.

Eviden

ce: D

ata

anal

yses

are

doc

umen

ted

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Pr

oces

s N

oteb

ook.

E5S

choo

lwid

e B

ull

yin

g P

reve

nti

on a

nd

In

terv

enti

on

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

com

plet

ed

the

form

Sta

ff Tr

aini

ng in

Pre

vent

ing

and

Resp

ondi

ng to

Bul

lyin

g an

d ha

s de

velo

ped

and

impl

emen

ted

a pl

an to

fill

in a

ny id

entifi

ed g

aps

in

curre

nt p

ract

ices

.

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

com

plet

ed

the

form

Stu

dent

Tra

inin

g in

Pr

even

ting

and

Resp

ondi

ng to

Bu

llyin

g. A

s pa

rt o

f a p

revi

ousl

y ad

-op

ted

bully

ing

curri

culu

m o

r thr

ough

th

e Foundations

less

ons,

stu

dent

s ar

e ta

ught

abo

ut b

ully

ing

prev

entio

n.

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

com

plet

ed

the

form

Fam

ily T

rain

ing

in P

reve

ntin

g an

d Re

spon

ding

to B

ully

ing

and

has

deve

lope

d an

impl

emen

tatio

n pl

an

to fi

ll in

any

iden

tified

gap

s in

cur

rent

pr

actic

es.

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

com

plet

ed th

e fo

rm A

ctiv

e En

gage

-m

ent f

or th

e Pr

even

tion

of B

ully

ing

and

has

deve

lope

d an

im

plem

enta

tion

plan

to fi

ll in

any

gap

s in

cur

rent

pra

ctic

es.

Bully

ing

issu

es a

re a

regu

lar p

art o

f the

team

’s w

ork

and

are

inte

grat

ed in

to s

taff

deve

lopm

ent e

ffor

ts.

Eviden

ce: O

ngoi

ng d

iscu

ssio

ns a

re d

ocum

ente

d in

the

Foun

datio

ns P

roce

ss N

oteb

ook.

Est

ablis

hed

prog

ram

s to

enha

nce

stud

ent e

ngag

emen

t are

doc

umen

ted

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Arc

hive

.

If an

y ite

ms a

re ra

ted

as le

ss th

an In

Pla

ce o

r if i

t has

bee

n m

ore

than

3 y

ears

sinc

e yo

u ha

ve d

one

so, w

ork

thro

ugh

the

Mod

ule

E Im

plem

enta

tion

Che

cklis

t.

Fou

nd

atio

ns

Imp

lem

enta

tion

Ru

bri

c an

d S

um

mar

y (p

. 6 o

f 8)

Mod

ule

E

© 2

014

Paci

fic N

orth

wes

t Pub

lishi

ng

Foun

datio

ns: A

Pro

activ

e and

Pos

itive

Beh

avio

r Sup

port

Sys

tem

© Safe & Civil Schools 15

Page 202: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Scho

ol N

ame

D

ate

Pre

sen

tati

on 

Pre

par

ing

(1)

Get

tin

g S

tart

ed (

2)M

ovin

g A

lon

g (3

)In

Pla

ce (

4)

F2S

up

por

tin

g C

lass

room

Beh

avio

r:

Th

e T

hre

e-L

egge

d

Sto

ol

A re

sear

ch-b

ased

mod

el fo

r cl

assr

oom

man

agem

ent h

as b

een

adop

ted

at th

e bu

ildin

g or

dis

trict

le

vel.

All t

each

ers

have

acc

ess

to tr

aini

ng, a

nd te

ache

rs n

ew to

th

e bu

ildin

g or

dis

trict

rece

ive

the

sam

e tra

inin

g.

Scho

ol a

nd d

istri

ct p

erso

nnel

are

id

entifi

ed a

s re

sour

ces

for t

each

ers

who

wou

ld li

ke o

bser

vatio

ns,

feed

back

, and

coa

chin

g. A

n ef

fort

is

mad

e to

act

ivel

y m

arke

t the

ben

efits

of

coa

chin

g su

ppor

t.

The

adm

inis

trato

r has

com

mun

i- ca

ted

clear

out

com

es a

nd g

oals

of

effe

ctiv

e cla

ssro

om m

anag

emen

t: •

90%

eng

agem

ent

• 9

5% re

spec

tful

inte

ract

ions

• 9

5% o

f beh

avio

r mat

ches

pos

ted

ex

pect

atio

ns

The

mod

el c

reat

es a

com

mon

lang

uage

am

ong

teac

hers

, su

ppor

t sta

ff, c

oach

es, a

nd a

dmin

istra

tors

for p

robl

em s

olvi

ng

and

inte

rven

tion.

Dat

a ar

e co

llect

ed a

nd a

naly

zed

to e

valu

ate

clas

sroo

m m

anag

emen

t eff

orts

.

Eviden

ce: I

nfor

mat

ion

on th

e m

odel

, adm

inis

trativ

e w

alk-

thro

ugh

visi

ts, a

nd c

oach

ing

supp

orts

is in

clud

ed in

the

Foun

datio

ns

Arch

ive

and

Staf

f Han

dboo

k.

F3A

rtic

ula

tin

g S

taff

B

elie

fs a

nd

Sol

idif

yin

g U

niv

ersa

l Pro

ced

ure

s

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

has

revi

ewed

sa

mpl

e st

aff b

elie

fs a

bout

be

havi

or m

anag

emen

t.

In fa

culty

and

sta

ff m

eetin

gs,

facu

lty a

nd s

taff

have

exa

min

ed

and

disc

usse

d sa

mpl

e st

aff b

elie

fs

abou

t beh

avio

r man

agem

ent.

All s

taff

have

dev

elop

ed a

nd

adop

ted

a se

t of w

ritte

n st

aff

belie

fs re

gard

ing

disc

iplin

e an

d be

havi

or, a

nd e

nsur

ed th

at it

alig

ned

with

the

scho

ol’s

mis

sion

stat

emen

t.

To s

olid

ify th

e cu

lture

of t

he s

choo

l and

to g

uide

the

ongo

ing

deve

lopm

ent o

f sch

ool p

olic

ies

and

proc

edur

es, s

taff

belie

fs a

re

revi

ewed

, dis

cuss

ed, a

nd re

vise

d as

nee

ded

at le

ast a

nnua

lly.

Eviden

ce: S

taff

belie

fs a

nd th

e re

view

pro

cess

are

doc

umen

ted

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Arc

hive

and

Sta

ff Ha

ndbo

ok.

F4E

arly

-Sta

ge

Inte

rven

tion

s fo

r G

ener

al E

du

cati

on

Cla

ssro

oms

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

and

sup

port

st

aff (

coun

selo

r, sc

hool

ps

ycho

logi

st, a

nd s

o on

) und

erst

and

the

conc

ept o

f ear

ly-s

tage

in

terv

entio

n.

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

, sup

port

sta

ff,

and

prin

cipa

l (or

dis

trict

ad

min

istra

tors

) agr

ee o

n th

e in

terv

entio

ns th

at s

houl

d be

incl

uded

in

the

early

-sta

ge p

roto

col.

All t

each

ers a

nd su

ppor

t sta

ff ha

ve

been

trai

ned

on th

e in

terv

entio

ns

in th

e sc

hool

or d

istri

ct e

arly

-sta

ge

prot

ocol

, inc

ludi

ng h

ow a

nd w

hy to

ke

ep re

cord

s of

eac

h in

terv

entio

n.

Data

Col

lect

ion

and

Debr

iefin

g (o

r an

equi

vale

nt) i

s ad

opte

d

as a

requ

ired

inte

rven

tion

for m

ost c

hron

ic b

ehav

iora

l pro

blem

s.

Data

mus

t be

char

ted

befo

re a

ssis

tanc

e is

requ

este

d fro

m

supp

ort s

taff

or p

robl

em-s

olvi

ng te

ams.

Eviden

ce: E

xpec

tatio

ns a

bout

whe

n an

d ho

w to

get

ass

ista

nce

are

incl

uded

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Arc

hive

and

Sta

ff Ha

ndbo

ok.

F5M

atch

ing

the

Inte

nsi

ty

of Y

our

Res

ourc

es t

o th

e In

ten

sity

of

You

r N

eed

s

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

and

sup

port

st

aff (

coun

selo

r, ps

ycho

logi

st,

and

so o

n) h

ave

iden

tified

a s

et o

f re

d-fla

g cr

iteria

and

(if p

ossi

ble)

ha

ve c

ondu

cted

uni

vers

al s

cree

ning

to

iden

tify

stud

ents

who

may

nee

d in

divi

dual

beh

avio

r sup

port

.

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

, sup

port

sta

ff,

and

prin

cipa

l (or

dis

trict

adm

inis

-tra

tors

) agr

ee o

n w

ho c

an s

erve

as

advo

cate

s fo

r stu

dent

s w

ho n

eed

addi

tiona

l sup

port

.

The

advo

cate

s m

eet r

egul

arly

to

disc

uss

prog

ress

and

cas

e st

udie

s to

ens

ure

that

eac

h st

uden

t’s n

eeds

ar

e be

ing

met

. Pat

tern

s of

nee

d ar

e co

mm

unic

ated

to th

e Fo

unda

tions

Te

am s

o pr

even

tion

effo

rts

can

be

impl

emen

ted.

All s

uppo

rt s

taff

and

prob

lem

-sol

ving

team

s ha

ve

writ

ten

brie

f job

des

crip

tions

that

out

line

the

serv

ices

they

can

pr

ovid

e. T

he d

ocum

ents

are

sha

red

with

sta

ff to

info

rm th

em

abou

t ava

ilabl

e re

sour

ces.

Eviden

ce: S

ugge

stio

ns fo

r acc

essi

ng th

ese

serv

ices

are

in th

e Fo

unda

tions

Arc

hive

and

Sta

ff Ha

ndbo

ok.

F6P

rob

lem

-Sol

vin

g P

roce

sses

an

d

Inte

rven

tion

Des

ign

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

und

erst

ands

th

at it

will

not

con

duct

sta

ffing

s (te

am-b

ased

pro

blem

sol

ving

) on

indi

vidu

al s

tude

nts,

but

the

team

sh

ould

exa

min

e cu

rrent

pro

cess

es

for s

uppo

rtin

g st

uden

ts a

nd s

taff.

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

and

sup

port

st

aff (

coun

selo

r, sc

hool

psy

chol

ogis

t, an

d so

on)

hav

e di

scus

sed

the

rang

e of

pro

blem

-sol

ving

sup

port

(ind

ivid

u-al

s an

d te

ams)

cur

rent

ly a

vaila

ble

to

stud

ents

and

sta

ff.

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

and

sup

port

st

aff h

ave

disc

usse

d th

e pr

oble

m-

solv

ing

proc

esse

s su

gges

ted

in

Foundations

(e.g

., th

e 25

-Min

ute

Plan

ning

Pro

cess

), an

d ha

ve

dete

rmin

ed w

heth

er th

e pr

oces

ses

wou

ld s

treng

then

cur

rent

pra

ctic

es.

A flo

wch

art o

r des

crip

tion

of h

ow th

e sc

hool

mee

ts th

e ne

eds

of s

tude

nts

and

staf

f has

bee

n cr

eate

d, w

hich

cla

rifies

how

the

inte

nsity

of s

tude

nt n

eeds

mat

ches

the

inte

nsity

of b

oth

prob

lem

-so

lvin

g pr

oces

ses

and

inte

rven

tion

desi

gn a

nd im

plem

enta

tion.

Eviden

ce: T

his

info

rmat

ion

is d

ocum

ente

d in

the

Foun

datio

ns

Arch

ive

and

sum

mar

ized

in th

e St

aff H

andb

ook.

F7S

ust

ain

abil

ity

and

D

istr

ict

Su

pp

ort

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

arc

hive

s

data

, in-

proc

ess

wor

k, a

nd a

ll

com

plet

ed p

olic

ies

and

proc

edur

es,

and

build

s on

this

wor

k ea

ch y

ear.

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

orie

nts

new

st

aff a

nd re

-ene

rgize

s re

turn

ing

staf

f ab

out a

ll po

licie

s an

d pr

oced

ures

, and

em

phas

izes

unity

and

con

sist

ency

.

Foun

datio

ns T

eam

use

s th

e ru

bric

an

nual

ly a

nd th

e Im

plem

enta

tion

Chec

klis

ts a

s in

divi

dual

mod

ules

nea

r co

mpl

etio

n an

d ev

ery

3 ye

ars

ther

e-af

ter.

The

team

use

s th

is in

form

atio

n to

gui

de s

taff

in s

ettin

g im

prov

emen

t pr

iorit

ies.

In la

rger

dis

trict

s (m

ore

than

four

sch

ools

), a

dist

rict-b

ased

te

am w

orks

on

sust

aina

bilit

y. Th

e te

am re

min

ds s

choo

ls a

bout

im

port

ant m

ilest

ones

(e.g

., su

rvey

s, y

ear-e

nd ta

sks,

etc

.) an

d on

goin

g st

aff d

evel

opm

ent o

ppor

tuni

ties

on b

ehav

ior s

uppo

rt.

Eviden

ce: T

his

info

rmat

ion

can

be fo

und

in d

istri

ct

com

mun

icat

ions

(e.g

., em

ails

) to

scho

ols

and

agen

da it

ems

fo

r prin

cipa

ls’ m

eetin

gs.

If an

y ite

ms a

re ra

ted

as le

ss th

an In

Pla

ce o

r if i

t has

bee

n m

ore

than

3 y

ears

sinc

e yo

u ha

ve d

one

so, w

ork

thro

ugh

the

Mod

ule

F Im

plem

enta

tion

Che

cklis

t.

Fou

nd

atio

ns

Imp

lem

enta

tion

Ru

bri

c an

d S

um

mar

y (p

. 7 o

f 8)

Mod

ule

F

© 2

014

Paci

fic N

orth

wes

t Pub

lishi

ng

Foun

datio

ns: A

Pro

activ

e and

Pos

itive

Beh

avio

r Sup

port

Sys

tem

© Safe & Civil Schools 16

Page 203: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Foundations Implementation Rubric and Summary (p. 8 of 8)

Preparing (1)

Getting Started (2)

Moving Along (3)

In Place (4)

Module A PresentationsA1. Foundations: A Multi-Tiered System of Behavior Support

A2. Team Processes

A3. The Improvement Cycle

A4. Data-Driven Processes

A5. Developing Staff Engagement and Unity

Module B PresentationsHallways

Restrooms

Cafeteria

Playground, Courtyard, or Commons

Arrival

Dismissal

Dress Code

Other:

Other:

Other:

Other:

Module C PresentationsC2. Guidelines for Success

C3. Ratios of Positive Interactions

C4. Improving Attendance

C5 & C6. School Connectedness and Programs and Strategies for Meeting Needs

C7. Welcoming New Staff, Students, and Families

Module D PresentationsD1. Proactive Procedures, Corrective Procedures, and Individual Interventions

D2. Developing Three Levels of Misbehavior

D3. Staff Responsibilities for Responding to Misbehavior

D4. Administrator Responsibilities for Responding to Misbehavior

D5. Preventing the Misbehavior That Leads to Referrals and Suspensions

Module E PresentationsE1. Ensuring a Safe Environment for Students

E2. Attributes of Safe and Unsafe Schools

E3. Teaching Conflict Resolution

E4. Analyzing Bullying Behaviors, Policies, and School Needs

E5. Schoolwide Bullying Prevention and Intervention

Module F PresentationsF2. Supporting Classroom Behavior: The Three-Legged Stool

F3. Articulating Staff Beliefs and Solidifying Universal Procedures

F4. Early-Stage Interventions for General Education Classrooms

F5. Matching the Intensity of Your Resources to the Intensity of Your Needs

F6. Problem-Solving Processes and Intervention Design

F7. Sustainability and District Support

Date

© 2014 Pacific Northwest Publishing

Foundations: A Proactive and Positive Behavior Support System

See next page

© Safe & Civil Schools 17

Page 204: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Foundations Implementation Rubric and Summary (p. 8 of 8)

Preparing (1)

Getting Started (2)

Moving Along (3)

In Place (4)

Module B Presentations—Other Common Areas and Schoolwide PoliciesOther:

Other:

Other:

Other:

Other:

Other:

Other:

Other:

Other:

Date

© 2014 Pacific Northwest Publishing

Foundations: A Proactive and Positive Behavior Support System

© Safe & Civil Schools 18

Page 205: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Student Involvement and Self-Determination Curricula Educator Implementation Information –2008 1

AL SSIP Transition Classroom Observation Form Center Street Consulting

TRANSITION FIDELITY EVALUATION

Teacher(s): School: Date: Observer: INSTRUCTIONS FOR OBSERVATIONS

Arranging the observation session: The teacher should know the purpose of the observation, understand how the information will be used, know who will conduct it, and help select the time for the visit.

Observing the lesson: Try to sit somewhere that is “out of the way” but where you can still see and hear what is going on in the classroom. Completing the observation instrument: Some of the observation form may be completed after the actual observation is over. Use the notes from the observation to

complete this observation form. BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR OBSERVATION Beginning/end time of observation:

Beginning: Ending:

Length of observation (minutes):

Total number of students in class: ELEMENTS OF THE STANFIELD TRANSITION CURRICULUM Rate each item using the scale below. List “Not Observed” only for those items that did not occur during the observation period due to external circumstances (e.g., a substitute teacher, a fire drill, etc.). Please provide comments for each item.

Key for Checklist

0=Not properly implemented

Page 206: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Student Involvement and Self-Determination Curricula Educator Implementation Information –2008 2

1=Emerging Implementation (Partially In-Place)

2=Full Implementation (Consistent and Sustaining)

999=Not observed or not applicable

Elements of the Curriculum Notes

Scores

Was an Advance Organizer used to start each lesson with an explicit statement of the objectives to prepare students for new information?

Was Feedback provided throughout each lesson in the “Evaluate Outcomes” section?

Was Vocabulary building based on systematic vocabulary instruction of the daily “Key Words” section?

Was Homework given, though the daily assignment of a creative, interesting, and motivating “Connecting Activity?”

Was Practice built into each lesson to develop student skills through guided and independent practice?

Was Summarizing included as a section of each lesson called “Evaluate Outcomes” where students have an opportunity to summarize what they have learned while the teacher checks for understanding?

NOTES:

Page 207: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Student Involvement and Self-Determination Curricula Educator Implementation Information –2008 3

ELEMENTS OF INSTRUCTION Rate each item using the scale below. List “Not Observed” only for those items that did not occur during the observation period due to external circumstances (e.g., a substitute teacher, a fire drill, etc.). Please provide comments for each item.

Key for Checklist

0=Not properly implemented

1=Emerging Implementation (Partially In-Place)

2=Full Implementation (Consistent and Sustaining)

999=Not observed or not applicable

Instructional Indicators Notes

Scores

Are materials ready for each activity?

Is the teacher organized and familiar with the lesson?

Does the teacher model skills/ strategies appropriately and with ease?

Does the teacher provide students adequate think time?

Does the teacher move quickly from one activity to the next?

Does the teacher maintain good pacing?

Does the teacher ensure students are firm on content prior to moving forward?

Are students highly engaged in the lesson?

Does the teacher complete all parts of the lesson?

Page 208: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Student Involvement and Self-Determination Curricula Educator Implementation Information –2008 4

Was the time allocated for the lesson sufficient?

Was the amount of material covered appropriate for the time allocated?

Did the delivery of the lesson provide individualization to meet students’ needs?

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

Students are considered engaged if they are: Students are considered not engaged when:

Looking attentively at the teacher and/or other students; Responding to questions; Volunteering responses; Talking to a teacher/peer about assigned material; Providing responses that build on the teachers or other

students’ comments; Showing that they understand ideas and concepts; Not distracted by outside noise or others behavior; Sticking to the task; Highly focused rather than moving around the room; Making progress on the task; Asking for help only when necessary; Talking to others only when necessary.

Talking about nonacademic material (verbal off-task); Walking around the room aimlessly (motor off-task); Calling out (verbal off-task) unless it is considered an

appropriate response style for that classroom; Aimlessly flipping the pages of a book (motor off task); Aimlessly looking around the classroom; Looking at unassigned material; Physically touching another student when not related to an

academic task; Other activity not related to the current activity; Turning around in seat, oriented away from task; Staring out the window—zoned out; Engaging in any other form of off-task behavior.

Instructions: For student engagement, a one minute scan is to be performed by the observer at 15 minute intervals during the instruction. Use the “Student Engagement Box” to record number of students engaged over students present in the class.

Student Engagement Box (number engaged over total students)

Interval Number Engaged Total Students [Leave blank]

At 15 min. At 30 min. At 45 min. At 60 min.

Page 209: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Student Involvement and Self-Determination Curricula Educator Implementation Information –2008 5

NOTES:

Page 210: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Copyright © 2009 Pacific Northwest Publishing

Variables Questions to guide discussion Y N Comments

Structure/Organize

the classroom for success.

1. Is the room arranged so you can get from any part of the room to any other part of the room relatively efficiently?

2. Can you and your students access materials and the pencil sharpener without disturbing others?

3. Does the schedule create consistency, variety, and opportunities for movement?

4. Do you have effective beginning and ending routines?5. Have you defined clear expectations for instructional

activities?6. Have you defined clear expectations for transitions

between activities?

Y

Y

Y

YY

Y

N

N

N

NN

N

Teach students how to behave

responsibly in the classroom.

1. Have you created lessons on expectations and explicitly taught them for classroom activities and transitions?

2. Have you created lessons and explicitly taught expectations for classroom routines and policies?

3. Have you provided teaching and reteaching as needed? (Think about a basketball coach reteaching particular plays or patterns.)

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

Observe student behavior

(supervise!)

1. Do you circulate and scan as a means of observing/monitoring student behavior?

2. Do you model friendly, respectful behavior while monitoring the classroom?

3. Do you periodically collect data to make judgments about what is going well and what needs to be improved in your management plan?

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

Interact positively with students.

1. Do you interact with every student in a welcoming manner (e.g., saying hello, using the student’s name, talking to the student at every opportunity)?

2. Do you provide age-appropriate, non-embarrassing feedback?

3. Do you strive to interact more frequently with every student when he is engaged in positive behavior than when he is engaged in negative behavior?

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

Correct irresponsible

behavior fluently—that is, in a manner that does not interrupt the flow of instruction.

1. Do you correct consistently?2. Do you correct calmly?3. Do you correct immediately?4. Do you correct briefly?5. Do you correct respectfully?6. Do you have a menu of in-class consequences that can

be applied to a variety of infractions?7. Do you have a plan for how to respond to different

types of misbehavior fluently?

YYYYYY

Y

NNNNNN

N

Reproducible Form 2.4

Classroom Management STOIC Checklist

Page 211: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Student Involvement and Self-Determination Curricula Educator Implementation Information –2008 1

EDUCATOR IMPLEMENTATION INFORMATION

STANFIELD TRANSITION CURRICULUM

1. Name of educator: _________________________________________________________________

2. Educator 2 (if co-teaching or co-implementing): __________________________________________

3. School: _________________________________________________________________________

4. Identify the title which best describes each educator’s current position:

Educator 1 Educator 2

a. ______ Special educator a. ______ Special educator

b. ______ General educator b. ______ General educator

c. ______ Speech/language therapist c. ______ Speech/language therapist

d. ______ Transition specialist or coordinator d. ______ Transition specialist or coordinator

e. ______ Other (specify): e. ______ Other (specify):

________________________________________

________________________________________

5. For the curriculum you implemented this year, use the following tables to provide general information about how and when you implemented it:

List curriculum name List name of the course in which the curriculum was taught (and section if more than 1 section) Enter number of students in each course/section Identify whether the course was a general (GEN) or special education (SPED) course. (If a course

is a general education course, but includes students in special education, it should be listed as GEN.)

Course Name/Section # Students Course Type Check if Co-taught

Lang. Arts – 1st Period 25 GEN ED

9th Grade Lang. Arts – 5th Period 5 SPED

a.

Course Name/Section # Students Course Type Check if Co-taught

Page 212: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Student Involvement and Self-Determination Curricula Educator Implementation Information –2008 2

b. Timeframe curriculum was taught (e.g., 1 time/week for 1 semester; every day for 3 weeks, etc.):

____________________________________________________________________________

c. How many of the lessons did you complete? ____ All ____ Some, # completed = _____

d. How many of the lessons did you modify? ____ None ____ Some (# = _____) ____ All

Please describe modifications here or attach additional pages: _____________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

6. This question focuses on your experience implementing the Stanfield Transition curriculum this year. Please use the scale provided to indicate your response to each of the following statements:

1 2 3 4 NA

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Not Applicable

Circle One

a. I had the materials I needed to implement the curriculum. 1 2 3 4 NA

b. I had adequate training to implement the curriculum. 1 2 3 4 NA

c. I had adequate technical assistance to implement the curriculum. 1 2 3 4 NA

d. I had the time I needed to plan for implementation. 1 2 3 4 NA

e. I had the time I needed to implement the curriculum. 1 2 3 4 NA

f. The self-determination curriculum fit nicely within the course in which I implemented it. 1 2 3 4 NA

Page 213: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Student Involvement and Self-Determination Curricula Educator Implementation Information –2008 3

g. The curriculum was appropriate for my students’ level and abilities. 1 2 3 4 NA

h. I had the support I needed from my administration. 1 2 3 4 NA

i. My students benefited from participating in the curriculum. 1 2 3 4 NA

j. My students reacted positively to the curriculum 1 2 3 4 NA

7. Please list any recommendations you have for helping to expand implementation of self-determination curriculum in the future:

8. I will use the curriculum next year: _____ Yes _____ No _____ Undecided

9. Are you willing to assist other teachers to implement the Stanfield Transition curricula?

_____ Yes _____ No _____Undecided

10. This question focuses on factors, if any, you think helped you implement the curriculum and factors that served as barriers to implementation. Please use the scale provided to rate each item as a barrier (1 or 2) or as a helper (4 or 5). Please add any barriers or helpers you think are important to the end of the list.

1 2 3 4 5

Major Barrier Somewhat a Barrier Not a factor Helped Somewhat Major Helper

Circle One

a. Training about the curriculum 1 2 3 4 5

b. Technical assistance for planning and implementation 1 2 3 4 5

c. Administrative support 1 2 3 4 5

d. Appropriateness of curriculum for students’ level 1 2 3 4 5

e. Students’ response to the curricular activities 1 2 3 4 5

f. “Fit” between the curriculum and the content of the course in which I implemented it 1 2 3 4 5

Page 214: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Student Involvement and Self-Determination Curricula Educator Implementation Information –2008 4

g. Alignment of curriculum with state standards 1 2 3 4 5

h. Alignment of curriculum with state assessment measures 1 2 3 4 5

i. Collaboration with co-workers 1 2 3 4 5

j. My prior knowledge (if any) of transition concepts 1 2 3 4 5

k. My prior experience (if any) with transition curricula 1 2 3 4 5

l. Time to try new things in my classroom 1 2 3 4 5

m. Encouragement for trying new things in my classroom 1 2 3 4 5

n. Recognition for trying new things in my classroom 1 2 3 4 5

o. Availability of supplies and materials needed to implement the curriculum 1 2 3 4 5

p. Response of my students’ families to the concepts taught through the curriculum 1 2 3 4 5

q. IDEA transition requirements 1 2 3 4 5

r. Evaluation and reporting requirements 1 2 3 4 5

s. Other: 1 2 3 4 5

Page 215: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Adapted from: Noonan, P., Gaumer-Erickson, A., Brussow, J., & Langham, A. (2015). Observation checklist for high-quality professional development in education. Lawrence, KS. University of Kansas, Center for Research on Learning.

22 Things to do: High-Quality Professional Development “To Do” List for Presenters

Dear Presenter(s),

An “Observation Checklist for High-Quality Professional Development Training” was created by Noonan et al. (2015) to be completed by

observers to determine the level of quality of professional development (PD) training. It is based on research-identified indicators that should be

present in high quality PD. Below is a checklist for your convenience. Thank you for your willingness to provide high quality PD.

Preparation Introduction Demonstration Engagement Evaluation/Reflection Mastery ___1. Provide description of training and objectives prior to training. ___2. Provide readings, activities, and/or questions to participants prior to the training. ___3. Provide agenda (i.e., schedule of topics and times) before the beginning of the training. ___4. Quickly establish rapport with participants.

___5. Connect topic to participant’s context. ___6. Include empirical research to content. ___7. Relate content to previous PD. ___8. Align content to organization’s standards or goals. ___9. Emphasize impact of content.

___10. Build shared vocabulary to implement and sustain practice. ___11. Provide examples of the content in use. ___12. Illustrate applicability of the content to participant’s context.

___13. Include opportunities for participants to rehearse skills. ___14. Include opportunities for participants to express personal perspectives. ___15. Facilitate opportunities for participants to interact about content. ___16. Adhere to agenda and time constraints.

___17. Include opportunities for participants to reflect on learning. ___18. Include specific indicators to indicate transfer to practice. ___19. Engage participants in assessment of their new knowledge and skills.

___20. Provide follow-up activities that require participants to apply their learning. ___21. Offer opportunities for continued learning. ___22. Describe opportunities for coaching to fidelity of practice.

Page 216: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Appendix VIII

Transition Concepts Student Survey

Page 217: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Transition Concepts Student Survey AL SSIP

Transition Concepts Student Survey

Name: ______________________________________________________________________ Age: _________ Gender: _________ Grade: __________

Circle Yes, No, or Unsure for each of the following statements:

Statement Circle One

1. I have an IEP. Yes No Unsure

2. I understand WHY I have an IEP. Yes No Unsure

3. I received an invitation to my last IEP Meeting. Yes No Unsure

4. I attended my last IEP Meeting. Yes No Unsure

5. I met with my special education teacher before my IEP

meeting to discuss:

a. my strengths and needs.

b. my goals when I am at school.

c. what I want to do after I graduate.

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Unsure

Unsure

Unsure

6. During my IEP meeting, I gave input or spoke about:

a. my strengths and needs.

b. my goals when I am at school.

c. what I want to do after I graduate.

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Unsure

Unsure

Unsure

7. I have taken a transition assessment this school year (TPI, KUDER, Interest inventory, etc).

Yes No Unsure

8. Someone discussed the results of that assessment with me. Yes No Unsure

9. I feel like I learned about myself from taking that assessment. Yes No Unsure

10. I ask for help with my classes when I need it. Yes No Unsure

11. I get help in my classes when I need it. Yes No Unsure

12. I have a job. Yes No Unsure

13. I know how to get a job. Yes No Unsure

14. I know what kind of job would be the best for me. Yes No Unsure

15. Describe in your own words, WHY you have an IEP? _____________________________

Page 218: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Transition Concepts Student Survey

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

16. Why did you take this transition class? _________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

17. What do you enjoy the most about the transition class? ___________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

18. What did you learn from the “All About Me” project? ______________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

19. Is there anything you would change about this class to make it better? _____________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

20. Would you recommend this class to a friend? Why or why not? _____________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

Page 219: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Appendix IX

AL Stakeholder Collaboration Survey

Page 220: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

We are gathering confidential feedback from project partners, participants, and ALSDE staff aboutthe implementation of the AL SSIP activities. We understand you may have had limited participationin the project, however we value any feedback you can provide.

We are asking for your assistance by completing a short survey. We will use your feedback toinform future project activities and for federal grant reporting.

Your responses will remain anonymous, and no identifying information will be reported. We wouldlike to have your responses by July 6th. If you have any questions or need further assistance,please contact Jocelyn Cooledge at [email protected]. Thank you for yourassistance!

1. Introduction

Alabama Stakeholder Collaboration Survey

2. Background Information

Alabama Stakeholder Collaboration Survey

1. In the past year, have you participated in any AL SSIP activities (e.g., meetings, training, TA, coaching,receiving resources/materials, etc.)?

Yes

No

I don't know.

2. In the past year, have you participated in three or more AL SSIP activities (e.g., meetings, training, TA,coaching, receiving resources/materials, etc.)?

Yes

No

I don't know.

3. Program Indicators

Alabama Stakeholder Collaboration Survey

Page 221: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

StronglyDisagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly Agree

NotApplicable/Cannot

Rate

When I have a questionabout the ALSSIP, I know WHERETO GETINFORMATION.

I am INFORMED asoften as I should beabout what goes on inthe project.

Partners involved in theproject RESPECT oneanother.

AL SSIP activities areWELL-PLANNED.

ALSSIP MEETINGS areefficient and productive.

AL SSIP is FLEXIBLE tomeet the needs of myorganization/district.

3. Please read each statement and indicate your level of agreement.

Page 222: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

StronglyDisagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly Agree

NotApplicable/Cannot

Rate

The ROLES of ALSSIP staff, partners, andparticipants are clear.

There is a CLEARLEADERSHIP for ALSSIP.

I have a goodunderstanding ofGOALS ANDOBJECTIVES for ALSSIP.

AL SSIP services arelikely to IMPROVE THEOUTCOMES forstudents with disabilitiesin Alabama.

My district/organizationBENEFITS FROMBEING INVOLVED withthis project.

Staff at mydistrict/organizationhave a high level ofCOMMITMENT to theAL SSIP.

4. Please read each statement and indicate your level of agreement.

5. If you received professional development offered by AL SSIP, please rate the overall quality of thetraining(s):

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

I have not received professional development from Project CTG.

Page 223: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

6. If you received AL SSIP professional development, did you apply any new skills as a result of thetraining(s)?

Yes, often.

Yes, sometimes.

No, I did not.

I have not received any professional development from Project CTG.

7. How could the project be improved?

8. Please give an example about how the AL SSIP is beneficial to your work.

9. Do you have any additional comments?

4. Your Role

Alabama Stakeholder Collaboration Survey

Page 224: OVERVIEW The Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan Design SSIP, Phase II - Narrati… · Description of Need : The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), Special Education

Other (please specify)

10. Please select the response from the list below that most closely describes your role. If choosing "other"please specify in the comment box labeled Other.*


Recommended